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 non-mutating, open-world tool. The description adds minor context: inputs are validated server-side and the output is 'audited.' However, it does not disclose behavior like async handling (despite an async parameter), return format, or any side effects. This meets the baseline but adds limited value beyond 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 (three sentences) and front-loads the tool's name and a branding phrase. The first sentence includes 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO),' which is promotional and not directly informative. The reference case is specific to one client and may not generalize. The structure is concise but includes extraneous detail that could be replaced with more useful usage instructions.

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?

This is a complex tool with eight parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description does not describe what the deliverable contains, how to interpret the result, or how to handle the async parameter (which is present in the schema). Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional guidance.

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 13%, leaving most parameters undocumented. The description does not explain individual fields; it only says 'send the documented case fields' and provides a reference case that hints at targetAccounts, budget, and tiers. The reference case is not mapped to specific schema properties, so the agent is left without semantic guidance for parameters like company, product, salesTeam, icpCriteria, etc.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Architecte ABM' (ABM Architect) and states it 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable,' which suggests it produces an account-based marketing plan or strategy. However, the verb 'Returns' is generic and the purpose is not clearly differentiated from siblings like abm_lookalike_account_finder or account_expansion_mapper. The reference case provides some context but does not explicitly define the tool's core function.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools. It only implies that this tool is for ABM-related deliverables, but without comparative context the agent cannot determine when this is the right choice.

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