company_consent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add two behavioral traits beyond the name: supplied proofs undergo verification, and provider effects remain external (side-effect boundary). However, it leaves critical behavior undisclosed—what happens when proof verification fails, whether 'advance' is irreversible, and what 'provider effects remain external' means in practical terms.

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?

One 18-word sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Inspect or advance consent through its scoped lifecycle') before the behavioral qualifiers. There is zero filler. However, the dense jargon in 'provider effects remain external' compromises clarity even as it keeps the text 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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a lifecycle-oriented state machine, this one-sentence description is materially insufficient. The output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity, but the agent still cannot determine what operations are available, what bundle_json must contain, how proofs are formatted, or what consequences 'advance' has. Contextual completeness is well below what this tool's complexity warrants.

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. It only hints that 'supplied proofs' are passed somewhere, with no explicit mapping to bundle_json, payload_json, or entity_ref. Nothing explains the meaning of operation values (beyond the 'list' default), the role of project_id, or what now/engine control.

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 specific verbs ('inspect or advance') and a specific resource ('consent through its scoped lifecycle'), which is more precise than a generic 'manage consent' phrasing. It does not name a sibling alternative, but no other consent-focused tool appears among the siblings, so ambiguity is low. The phrase 'supplied proofs are verified' adds meaningful specificity about what the tool does with inputs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when to choose 'inspect' versus 'advance', or what prerequisites exist (e.g., must a consent record already exist before advancing?). With a sibling list of several hundred tools, the absence of any routing or exclusion guidance is a significant gap. The 'inspect or advance' dichotomy implies two usage modes but never explains how to select between them.

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