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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the tool's safety profile. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side and that the tool returns a structured, audited deliverable. However, it does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid input. Given the annotation coverage, the description provides modest additional behavioral context.

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 (4 sentences) and includes essential information: purpose, output type, and an example. However, the first sentence is cryptic ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CRO)') and the reference case is detailed but not fully integrated. The structure is acceptable but could be more streamlined by focusing on general usage rather than a specific example.

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 complex nested parameters with low schema coverage and no output schema. The description provides a reference case but lacks explanations of parameter semantics, required fields, or the structure of the deliverable beyond 'structured, audited.' Annotations cover readOnly and openWorld, but the description does not sufficiently complete the picture for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional context.

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 the 'async' parameter has a description). The description does not explain the individual parameters (company, account, product) beyond the general instruction to 'send the documented case fields.' The reference case gives a partial example but does not systematically clarify the meaning or usage of each nested field. This is insufficient to compensate for the low schema 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's purpose: generating customer rescue plans ('Plans de sauvetage clients') and returning a structured, audited deliverable. It includes a concrete reference case (Kyriba) that illustrates the output. However, the cryptic phrase 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CRO)' slightly reduces clarity, and there is no explicit differentiation from similar sibling tools like 'churn_defender' or 'renewal_optimizer', but the distinct purpose is still discernible.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use. The reference case implies usage for clients at risk, but no decision framework is given. The tool's purpose is implied (rescue plans), but the lack of directional context for the agent limits usability.

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