company_agreements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add valuable context: supplied proofs are verified and provider effects remain external. However, it does not disclose required permissions, reversibility of advances, or what happens to an agreement when advanced.

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 one tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no redundant filler. It is concise, though some phrases like 'scoped lifecycle' are jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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 seven-parameter tool with no annotations and no operation enum, the description is insufficient: it never states what operations are available, how proofs are supplied, or what 'external' effects mean. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations but not the invocation requirements.

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 0%, and the description does not explain project_id, bundle_json, operation, entity_ref, payload_json, now, or engine. The hint that 'supplied proofs are verified' suggests a proof-bearing input but does not name the parameter or its format.

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 concrete verbs ('Inspect or advance') with a clear resource ('agreements') and constrains the scope to a lifecycle, which tells an agent the basic domain. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling agreement tools, but no sibling has the same inspect/advance lifecycle framing.

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 guidance on when to choose inspection versus advancement, no mention of the operation parameter, and no alternative sibling is named. The phrase 'scoped lifecycle' implies some conditions but leaves the selection criteria to the agent to infer.

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