compensation_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one contribution is 'sans exécution / without execution', which usefully confirms it plans but does not apply anything, yet it says nothing about what is produced, whether state is persisted, or what the caller must then do with the plan.

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 content is a single sentence repeated verbatim in French, English and Spanish, tripling length without adding information. The core statement is front-loaded, but two-thirds of the text is pure duplication.

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?

For a tool whose only input is an opaque nested object and which has no output schema, the description should explain the case structure and the resulting plan. It supplies neither, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call or anticipate the response.

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?

There is a single required parameter, 'case', a nested object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With the schema carrying no documentation and the description offering none, an agent has no idea what structure to pass, which fields are expected, or what makes a case valid.

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 gives a verb+resource pair ('prepare a contingent compensation plan'), so an agent can tell this is a planning/drafting operation rather than an executor. However, 'compensation plan' is never disambiguated (financial payout? error remediation? legal settlement?), and the domain of the tool remains guesswork even though there are no siblings to distinguish it from.

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 statement of when to call this versus other approaches, no prerequisites, and no context about what a 'case' must contain to be valid. The only guidance is the negation 'without execution', which implies a dry-run/preparation role but does not tell the agent when that role is appropriate.

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