Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context that inputs are validated server-side and that the deliverable is 'audited,' which suggests a quality-checked output. However, it does not explain the return format, potential delays, or any rate limits, leaving room for more transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short but not well structured or front-loaded. It opens with the French title, then includes the branding 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CSO)' which adds no operational value. The reference case is a single concrete example but is presented without a clear connection to the tool's purpose, making the text feel more like marketing than a useful specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the deliverable contains, how to interpret the return value, or when to use it. The reference case hints at inputs but not at the structure of the output. The description is too thin to allow an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at only 13% (only the async parameter has a description), the description needed to explain or enumerate the documented case fields but does not. 'Send the documented case fields' is circular and unhelpful. The reference case mentions markets, budget, and ARR but does not map them to parameters, so an agent receives no parameter meaning from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description conveys that this tool relates to geographic expansion and returns a 'structured, audited deliverable,' so it is more than a tautology. However, it lacks a specific action verb (e.g., plan, evaluate, recommend) and does not distinguish itself from siblings like market_entry_strategist or growth_path_architect. The reference case adds context but does not clarify the tool's core function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The mention of 'agent-payable C-suite expertise' hints at a target audience, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The instruction 'send the documented case fields' is about input handling, not usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.