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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side and that a structured audited deliverable is returned, but it does not disclose failure modes, output format details, or async behavior.

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 purpose appearing in the first phrase. The reference case and validation note add value, though the marketing phrase 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise' is unnecessary noise.

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?

With six parameters including nested required objects, an async option, and no output schema, the description is too thin to guide an agent effectively. It provides a reference case but no detail on expected inputs or the deliverable's structure.

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%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only says 'send the documented case fields,' leaving the required company, suppliers, and auditCriteria objects entirely unexplained.

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 states the tool audits supplier ESG and returns a structured, audited deliverable, with a concrete reference case. It is specific about the resource (supplier ESG) but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like esg_audit_multi or action_plan_esg.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. The reference case and server-side validation note provide context but do not help an agent choose this tool over closely related siblings.

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