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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that 'inputs are validated server-side' and that it 'returns a structured, audited deliverable.' However, it does not disclose the async behavior (offered via the 'async' parameter) or explain the purpose of presenterScript, which is a notable behavioral gap.

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 relatively short (four sentences) but includes marketing fluff ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)') and a French title that may require translation. It is not as crisp as ideal, but still reasonably concise.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema, no output schema, and the description does not explain the deliverable's contents, the presenterScript parameter, or async behavior. The reference case provides some context, but overall the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full input requirements or output format.

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 very low (17%, only async). The description mentions 'documented case fields' and references frameworks like RGPD, CCPA, LGPD, UK GDPR, giving some clue about targetFrameworks and processing activities, but it does not explain the structure of company, processingActivities, or presenterScript. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 indicates this is a privacy compliance audit tool, with the title 'Audit conformité vie privée' and reference to the Lemlist case involving RGPD, CCPA, LGPD, and UK GDPR. It also states the output is 'a structured, audited deliverable.' It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling compliance tools, but the focus on privacy compliance is evident.

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?

Usage is implied through the reference case (Lemlist SAS for B2B SaaS outreach, EU→US transfers, etc.) and the mention of multiple privacy frameworks, suggesting when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives (e.g., ai_act_incident_response, cyber_risk_auditor) to prefer.

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