company_allocation_outcomes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool mutates state, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to existing data. It only mentions inputs ('bundle's plans', 'persisted chains') and outputs, leaving side effects and error conditions undisclosed.

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 sentence without redundancy, which is concise, but it is dense and not front-loaded with the most critical information. It starts with the action but buries the input sources and output metrics in a long clause, making it harder to parse quickly.

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?

Given 7 parameters, undocumented schema, and an output schema that isn't described, the description does not provide enough context for correct invocation. It omits what bundle_json should contain, what 'persisted chains' refers to, and how project_id relates to the allocation, leaving an agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate. It references 'bundle's plans' and 'persisted chains' but does not map these to the actual parameters (project_id, bundle_json, now, engine, operation, entity_ref, payload_json). It leaves the meaning of bundle_json and the other parameters unexplained, failing to help an agent construct valid inputs.

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 states a clear verb ('Build') and resource ('outcome of an earlier channel allocation'), and specifies the computed metrics (spend, realised CAC, payback, LTV/CAC per line). It conveys the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like company_channel_allocation, leaving some ambiguity about the exact boundary.

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 temporal sequence (after an earlier allocation and cohort build) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools. An agent cannot determine what conditions make this tool appropriate versus others.

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