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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it promises an 'audited deliverable' and states inputs are 'validated server-side'. However, it omits details like execution time, whether the async parameter is supported, or any cost/rate limits. The readOnlyHint already covers safety, so the modest addition earns an average score.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's name, but includes brand fluff ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO)') and a reference case that, while illustrative, is not essential. The validation sentence is useful. Overall, it is reasonably concise with minor non-value-added content.

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 with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain the return value structure, the intended use case, or prerequisite knowledge. The reference case provides a single example but doesn't fill the gaps in parameter semantics or output expectations.

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% (only 'async' has a description), and the tool description does not compensate. It does not explain what 'company', 'targetAudience', 'objectives', 'currentEvents', etc. mean; the reference case only indirectly hints at 'annualBudgetEur' and 'currentEvents'. The phrase 'documented case fields' is a pointer to external documentation, not a substitute.

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 domain (event marketing) and states it 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable', but the exact nature of the deliverable (e.g., event selection plan, budget allocation, optimization) is not explicit. It distinguishes from general marketing tools only by the 'Marketing événementiel' label, not by a clear verb+resource. The reference case hints at output, but purpose remains vague.

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 vs the many sibling marketing tools (e.g., marketing_roi_dashboard, customer_marketing). The only usage hint is 'send the documented case fields', which is a validation note, not a when-to-use directive. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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