company_costs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it adds two behavioral hints: supplied proofs are verified and provider effects remain external. However, it never says whether advancing mutates the cost, whether the operation is reversible, what verification failure looks like, or what 'provider effects remain external' means in practice, leaving a serious transparency gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and both clauses add information. Its terseness is not fully appropriate for a stateful tool with seven undocumented parameters, so it is concise but under-specified.

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 lifecycle tool with a required bundle, payload, operation, and project scope, the description omits what lifecycle states exist, how to advance one, what proofs must be supplied, and what the output represents. The presence of an output schema helps return-value understanding, but the invocation context remains incomplete.

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 none of the seven parameters (including required project_id and bundle_json) are explained. 'Supplied proofs are verified' obliquely hints at bundle/payload content, but the description does not map any behavior to specific parameter names, formats, or valid operation values.

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 names a concrete action split ('inspect or advance') on a specific resource ('costs') through a scoped lifecycle, so an agent can tell this is a cost-lifecycle manipulation tool rather than a generic lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as company_spend or company_payables, so it stops short of a 5.

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 of when to use this tool rather than a sibling, and no guidance on choosing inspect vs. advance or what conditions require this lifecycle tool. The 'scoped lifecycle' phrase implies a context but provides no exclusions or alternatives.

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