company_authority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add behavioral context by saying proofs are verified and provider effects remain external, which tells the agent that validation occurs and side effects are scoped outside the provider. However, it does not state whether 'advance' is destructive, what state changes occur, or what the output/return behavior implies, leaving significant gaps.

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 compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The second clause packs additional behavioral information rather than restating the tool name, though 'provider effects remain external' is dense/ambiguous enough to cost the fifth point.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the tool exposes multiple operations through an 'operation' parameter and has no annotation support or parameter documentation. The description does not explain the lifecycle states, how to choose list vs advance, what payload_json/entity_ref contain, or the consequences of an advance, so an agent is not equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 for seven undocumented parameters but only vaguely alludes to 'supplied proofs'. Required fields project_id and bundle_json, plus payload_json, entity_ref, operation, now, and engine, are left unexplained; an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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+resource pair ('Inspect or advance authority') and adds a scoping phrase ('through its scoped lifecycle'), so an agent knows this tool is about lifecycle inspection/advancement rather than generic company actions. It does not fully define what 'authority' denotes or enumerate its lifecycle states, but the phrase is enough to distinguish it from most sibling 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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus an alternative; it never names a sibling or exclusion condition. The closest it comes is the general implication that one should invoke it to inspect or advance authority, but prerequisites, operation selection, and fallback tools are left unspecified.

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