brc_check_transaction_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool returns warnings but does not specify the nature of warnings, side effects (none expected), or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. Acceptable but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits the return format of the warnings. It could be more complete by specifying the structure or content of the warnings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only an example for companyName ('YOUR-COMPANY-NAME'), which adds marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks BRC company processing settings before VAT-sensitive or payment-terms-sensitive workflows, and returns warnings for pre-validation. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the context (VAT/payment-terms sensitive), though not perfectly distinct from other check tools.

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 implies usage before creating or changing records in specific workflows, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide guidance on alternatives like brc_company_readiness_check. No explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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