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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds that it returns 'a structured, audited deliverable' and that inputs are 'validated server-side'. This adds some behavioral context (output nature, validation) but does not disclose details like processing time, rate limits, or what 'audited' entails. No contradiction with annotations.

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, with four sentences. The reference case is somewhat illustrative but includes marketing-like phrasing ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise'). Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, but slightly padded.

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 (company, round, termSheetClauses array) and no output schema. The description gives a high-level deliverable description and a reference case, but does not explain how to structure the inputs or what constitutes a valid term sheet case, making it insufficient for correct invocation without additional assumptions.

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 description says 'send the documented case fields' but does not explain what company, round, or termSheetClauses should contain. The reference case mentions clauses and a score but does not map inputs to schema fields, so it adds minimal parameter meaning.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Négociation term sheet' (term sheet negotiation) in a FUNDRAISING context. It specifies a verb+resource and is distinguished from siblings by the reference case showing analysis of clauses, red flags, and a founder score. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies use for fundraising term sheet negotiation through the FUNDRAISING tag and reference case, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of alternative tools or exclusions.

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