pws_company_overview

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a list of returned content categories but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response size, pagination, or any prerequisites. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description is consistent but does not add significant behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists all key segments without wasted words. Every element adds value, and the sentence structure is clear and scannable.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of what the dashboard contains (size, money, finance history, roster balance/payroll, availability, shows, titles, storylines, alerts). This is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it could explicitly state that it returns a single aggregated snapshot.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needs no parameter explanation, and the empty schema provides complete coverage. The absence of parameters is consistent with the description's 'Get a management dashboard' framing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('management dashboard for the player company'), followed by an explicit list of included components (size, money, finance history, roster balance/payroll, availability, shows, titles, storylines, alerts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like roster, shows, or titles.

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 a broad overview use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over specific sibling tools (e.g., 'use this for a consolidated view instead of fetching each detail separately'). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, making usage guidance only implied.

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