company_disbursements

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It hints at verification ('supplied proofs are verified') and external impact ('provider effects remain external'), but these are vague and do not clearly state whether the tool is read-only or mutating, nor what happens on success or failure.

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 concise as a single sentence but is not informative. It lacks structure and clarity, using jargon that obscures rather than clarifies the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the complexity implied by the output schema and the large sibling set, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to decide when to use it, what inputs to supply, or what outcomes to expect.

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 input schema lists seven parameters (now, engine, operation, entity_ref, project_id, bundle_json, payload_json) with zero descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving an agent with no understanding of how to fill them or what they mean.

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 mentions 'inspect or advance disbursements' which gives some action, but 'through its scoped lifecycle' and 'supplied proofs are verified and provider effects remain external' are cryptic and fail to clearly state what the tool does. It does not effectively distinguish this tool from numerous sibling tools with similar 'company_*' naming patterns.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use case, prerequisites, or contrast with other tools in the sibling list.

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