company_decide

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the tool 'Decides nothing,' indicates it produces JSON, and describes ranked counterfactual forecasts with sensitivity. It does not cover side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, but the most important behavioral caveat is addressed.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, the 'Decides nothing' caveat is placed early, and the output format is stated compactly at the end.

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 enough for tool selection but not for reliable invocation: three required parameters, especially bundle_json, are undocumented, and the 0% schema coverage is not compensated. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input contract remains a significant gap.

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 does not explain any of the parameters. The opaque bundle_json parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and there is no hint about what now or cash_on_hand contribute, so an agent cannot confidently construct the required arguments.

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 specific action ('brief') and a specific target ('pending engine approval'), and immediately clarifies what it does not do ('Decides nothing'). This clearly separates it from decision-taking tools like decide_engine_approval and from generic company briefing tools.

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?

The description clearly indicates when to use it: when a counterfactual briefing with approve/reject/alternative forecasts is needed. The 'Decides nothing' statement provides a meaningful exclusion, but it does not explicitly name the decision-making alternative or spell out when not to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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