company_coverage

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. It does mention that 'supplied proofs are verified' and 'provider effects remain external', which hints at some verification and side-effect behavior, but the meaning of 'provider effects' is ambiguous. It does not say whether advancing coverage mutates state, what resources are affected, or whether the operation is safe or destructive.

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 brief and front-loads a purpose clause, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. Both clauses rely on undefined domain language ('coverage', 'scoped lifecycle', 'provider effects'), so the sentence does not earn its place by enabling correct use. It is concise but not effectively structured for an agent.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a lifecycle concept, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a valid call looks like, what values operation can take, what the lifecycle stages are, or what the output represents. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 the description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters. Terms like project_id, bundle_json, operation, entity_ref, and payload_json are left completely undefined. The vague reference to 'supplied proofs' does not meaningfully map to the schema.

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-and-resource pair ('Inspect or advance coverage'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, 'coverage' is undefined, and the phrase 'scoped lifecycle' is jargon that does not convey what the agent is actually inspecting or advancing. It also does not differentiate from closely named siblings like company_cover or company_standing.

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 given on when to call this tool versus related company_* tools. The description never clarifies when one would 'inspect' versus 'advance' coverage, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. An agent cannot decide when this is the right tool.

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