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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds some behavioral context with 'Inputs are validated server-side' and 'Reference case: Stripe Series A 2012,' but it does not disclose output format, cost, or delivery behavior. It provides modest value beyond the 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 at three sentences, but the phrase 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CFO)' is promotional and adds little functional value. The structure is front-loaded but not every sentence carries essential information.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, multiple enums) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the 'structured, audited deliverable' contains, how to handle async responses, or how the Stripe reference applies. The description is too vague for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool.

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 (25%), and the description does not compensate. It only says 'send the documented case fields,' without explaining the meaning or expected format of company, raise, keyMetrics, or async. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 says 'Business Plan narratif' and 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable,' but it never explicitly states that the tool generates a business plan narrative. It restates the tool's name and lacks a clear verb like 'generates' or 'creates,' making it vague and not distinguishing it from sibling tools such as ftg_business_plan.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only operational note is 'Inputs are validated server-side,' which is about call mechanics, not usage context. No exclusions, alternative references, or use-case scenarios are given.

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