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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it validates inputs server-side and returns a structured, audited deliverable, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose the async behavior (despite an async parameter in the schema), nor any potential limitations like rate limits or output size. The added context is helpful but incomplete.

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 compact (two sentences), but it wastes space on promotional fluff ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CSO)') that does not help an agent. The core information is front-loaded, but the filler could be removed. It is neither excessively long nor perfectly efficient.

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 5 parameters, 3 required nested objects, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description fails to explain what inputs are actually needed or what the deliverable looks like in detail. It mentions a reference case and frameworks, but an agent would not know how to construct the required 'case fields' or interpret the response. The description is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only async has a description). The description itself adds no parameter semantics—it merely says 'send the documented case fields' without explaining any of the nested fields (company, targetMarket, preferences, focus). For a tool with complex nested objects and low schema coverage, this is inadequate. It fails to compensate for the schema's sparse descriptions.

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 clearly states that the tool produces a market entry strategy ('Stratégie d'entrée marché') and returns a structured, audited deliverable. It references specific frameworks (Porter's 5 forces, entry modes, roadmap, risk register), giving a concrete sense of what it does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like market_research_brief or market_sizing, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this for X, use that for Y' or any prerequisites. The only operational note ('send the documented case fields') is about input submission, not about selection criteria. This is a significant gap for a strategy tool among many similar strategic options.

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