company_custody

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does provide useful behavioral facts: supplied proofs are verified and provider effects remain external. However, it omits whether advancing custody mutates or destroys state, what happens on verification failure, and any permission or side-effect expectations.

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 and avoids padding. Some phrases like 'provider effects remain external' are compressed to the point of ambiguity, but overall the length is appropriate.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified: lifecycle states, operation values, proof format, and input semantics. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing instruction on how to construct a valid call.

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, but it names no parameters. 'Supplied proofs' hints that bundle_json or payload_json carries proof data without mapping to them, and operation, project_id, entity_ref, now, and engine remain entirely unexplained.

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 identifies a domain resource ('custody') and two actions ('inspect or advance'), and adds scope ('scoped lifecycle'), so it is not a tautology. However, it never defines what 'custody' refers to or how 'advance' differs from similar lifecycle operations in sibling tools, leaving selection confidence limited.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_agent_training_input_custody or advance_service_case_resolution. The phrase 'scoped lifecycle' implies constraints but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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