company_deposits

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'advance' which implies mutation, but does not state side effects, permissions, reversibility, or approval requirements. The term 'scoped chain lifecycle' is unexplained, and there is no mention of what happens to deposits when advanced. The description is completely opaque about the tool's 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 sentence, so it is concise in length, but it fails to front-load meaningful information. The jargon-heavy phrasing wastes the reader's attention without delivering clarity. A concise but vague description does not earn its place; it should be replaced with more explicit, structured content.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema that is not referenced. The description fails to explain the core operations, parameter semantics, return structure, or any prerequisites. This is a critical gap for a tool that handles financial operations like deposits and retainers. The description is nowhere near sufficient for an agent to use it 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the 7 parameters (project_id, bundle_json, operation, etc.) or their meaning. The required 'project_id' and 'bundle_json' are not described, and the 'operation' parameter that likely controls the inspect/advance behavior is ignored. The description provides no value beyond the raw 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 it inspects or advances deposits/retainers, but the phrasing 'scoped chain lifecycle' and 'verified receipts' is jargon-heavy and ambiguous. It does not clearly differentiate this tool from similar finance tools like company_receivables or company_collections, nor does it specify what operations are actually available (list, advance, etc.). The verb is present but the resource scope is fuzzy.

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 sibling tools, conditions, or exclusions. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for inspecting deposits versus advancing them, or when to use company_receivables instead.

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