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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects, and the description implies a read-only operation ('returns a structured, audited deliverable'). The description adds context about the output being audited, but does not disclose other behaviors like auth needs or potential delays. With annotations already covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the title and target audience. However, the use of French may slightly impede quick comprehension for English-speaking agents. Overall, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format beyond a reference case, omits behavior of the async parameter, and fails to describe the relationship between inputs and the deliverable. More detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 low (13%), yet the description adds no meaning for any parameter. It only vaguely says 'send the documented case fields', which does not explain the purpose or structure of the 8 parameters, many of which are nested objects with required fields. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 is a positioning strategist targeted at C-suite/CMO, and lists specific outputs (angle de différenciation, 5 piliers messaging, battle plan) with a reference case. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pricing_strategist or market_entry_strategist, and is in French which may reduce clarity for English agents.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context on prerequisites or limitations. The only usage direction is that inputs are validated server-side, which is minimal.

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