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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation with possible external data access. The description adds that it returns an 'audited deliverable' and that inputs are validated server-side, which are useful but minimal behavioral disclosures. No details on rate limits, auth, or specific side effects are provided, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 core purpose and return value are front-loaded, but the description includes marketing fluff ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise') and a lengthy reference case (Agicap Series C €70M...) that does not aid an AI agent in tool selection or invocation. It is a single long sentence with extraneous details that could be trimmed for clarity.

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?

Given the complex nested input schema with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves many gaps. It does not explain the structure of the 'structured deliverable', the meaning of the case fields, or how async mode should be used. The annotation hints cover safety, but the description is insufficient for a tool with this level of input 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 25% (only 'async' has a description). The tool description references 'documented case fields' but does not explain what round, company, or founderContext mean beyond their schema types. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Préparation Q&A investisseurs' (prepare investor Q&A) with a fundraising context. It clearly indicates the tool returns a structured, audited deliverable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like pitch_deck_storyline or audit_pre_flight, so it misses the differentiation criterion for 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: during fundraising to prepare for investor Q&A, citing a reference case for a Series C round. It implies the usage scenario effectively, but it does not name alternatives or mention exclusions, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' standard.

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