company_deals

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

The description discloses that 'supplied proofs are verified' and 'provider effects remain external', which conveys some behavioral traits about verification and side effects. However, these statements are abstract and do not explain the nature of the proofs or the external effects in concrete 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that avoids unnecessary verbiage. It is well-structured and front-loads the core action, though its brevity contributes to vagueness.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to effectively use the tool. It does not explain the purpose of the input parameters, the expected output, or how the tool fits into a broader workflow. The lack of output schema and parameter details leaves significant gaps.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with zero descriptions. The description mentions 'supplied proofs' but does not map them to any specific parameter (e.g., bundle_json or payload_json), providing no additional meaning to the parameter names or structure.

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 the tool 'inspect[s] or advance[s] deals through its scoped lifecycle', which identifies a clear verb and resource. However, 'scoped lifecycle' is vague and does not clarify what specific actions are supported, nor does it distinguish from similar deal-related tools like list_crm_deals.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving an agent without direction on selection.

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