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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that inputs are 'validated server-side' and the deliverable is 'audited,' which provides modest context. It does not describe output shape or behavior when async=true, but the schema covers the async behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 gets to the point, with only two sentences plus a reference case. It is efficient and front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose. The phrase 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO)' is a bit cryptic but not redundant enough to lower the score further.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description only vaguely promises a 'structured, audited deliverable' without detailing what it contains. It provides a reference case but omits important context such as how inputs map to the deliverable, what the response format is, or how the async path is handled. The description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 17% (only 'async' has a description), and the tool description fails to compensate. It mentions sending 'documented case fields' but never explains what brand, keywords, channels, industry, or historicalCrises mean or how to use them. This is a major gap for a tool with four required parameters and no other parameter guidance.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a reputation engine ('Moteur de réputation') and states it 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable,' which conveys the core purpose. It lacks a strong action verb like 'generate' or 'monitor,' but the title and context make the tool's function reasonably clear. No sibling has the same 'reputation_engine' name, so differentiation is less critical.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the audience ('C-suite expertise (CMO)') and provides a reference case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references. This leaves the agent without clear guidance on when reputation_engine 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.