company_cover

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

The description mentions verification of proofs and that provider effects remain external, but does not explain side effects, error behavior, or what 'provider effects' means. Without annotations, it fails to fully disclose behavior.

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 dense sentence that is vague and lacks clear structure. It is not effectively front-loaded with key information.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema (as indicated), the description does not cover the domain of 'cover', expected inputs, or return values. It is far from complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters (project_id, bundle_json, now, engine, operation, entity_ref, payload_json). The agent has no clue what each parameter represents.

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 verb ('inspect or advance') and a resource ('cover'), but 'cover' is ambiguous and the phrase 'through its scoped lifecycle' adds little clarity. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling company tools like company_chaos or company_bring_up.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or example scenarios are mentioned.

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