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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds that the tool returns an 'audited deliverable' and that inputs are validated server-side, providing some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on deliverable format, potential side effects, or limitations, so the additional context is modest.

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 verbose and jargon-heavy, mixing French phrases and marketing buzzwords. The core purpose is buried under reference-case details and brand language. It is not front-loaded or concise, making it harder for an agent to quickly grasp what the tool does.

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, 7 parameters, no output schema—the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain expected inputs, deliverable format, or how to use the tool effectively. The vague 'audited deliverable' and case reference are not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly 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 14% (only 'async' has a description). The description does not compensate for the low coverage; it merely says 'send the documented case fields' without explaining what those fields are or how they should be structured. Required parameters like company, product, customers, and goals are left entirely to 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 does not clearly state what the tool does. 'Marketing clients & ambassadeurs' is a vague title rather than a verb+resource statement. 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable' gives a generic outcome but not the specific function. The reference case provides hints but leaves the core purpose ambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't explain the intended scenario or contrast with sibling tools like event_marketing or lead_magnets. It only says inputs are validated server-side, which is not a usage guideline.

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