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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side and the deliverable is 'audited,' providing slightly more context than the annotations alone. However, it does not disclose output format, latency, or any potential external data usage that the openWorldHint might imply.

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 relatively short but contains marketing-style language ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CSO)') that adds little value. The reference case is informative but takes up space without providing a general template or behavior description.

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 complex nested schema (5 parameters, 4 required) and no output schema, the description should specify what the deliverable contains and how to interpret the result. It only offers a single example (Pennylane) and does not cover async execution, response structure, or edge cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking the 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 only 20% (only async has a description), and the description provides no additional semantic meaning for company, growthTarget, currentDrivers, or constraints. The reference case mentions ARR and mix but does not explain field units, relationships, or how to construct valid inputs beyond the schema's structural requirements.

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 'Architecte de croissance' and states it returns 'a structured, audited deliverable,' with a reference case (Pennylane) showing 3 growth paths and target ARR. This implies it produces growth strategies, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'designs' or 'creates' and does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as strategic_options_analyzer or geographic_expansion.

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 only usage-related note is 'Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields,' which is about input submission mechanics, not tool selection context.

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