company_channel_allocation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says what is built and from what inputs. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only computation or a mutating/persisting operation, nor does it mention authorization needs or side effects. For a tool named 'build,' this leaves the agent uncertain about whether invoking it changes state.

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 beginning with 'Build the channel allocation,' and it packs the definition and input sources into one pass. It is dense and jargon-heavy but contains no filler and remains reasonably short.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, side effects, usage conditions, and any guidance about operation or payload_json. The output schema may cover return shape, but the description alone is insufficient for reliable selection and invocation.

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 adds some meaning by linking 'bundle's plan' to bundle_json and 'persisted chains' to project state, but it leaves project_id, operation, now, engine, entity_ref, and payload_json essentially unexplained. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct invocation from the description alone.

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, 'Build,' and names a concrete resource, 'channel allocation,' defined in the parenthetical as 'deployable monthly growth spend shared across paid-back channels by LTV/CAC.' It also names its inputs, 'the bundle's plan and the persisted chains,' which makes the action understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as company_allocation_outcomes or company_growth_review.

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 statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditional routing are provided. The only hint is that it operates 'from the bundle's plan and the persisted chains,' which implies a context but does not explain when an agent should select this tool over any sibling.

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