company_dunning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful non-obvious traits: supplied proofs are verified, and provider effects are intentionally kept external. However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility of 'advance', failure behavior, or what verification actually entails.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded before the caveats. The phrasing is jargon-heavy and somewhat cryptic, but it is concise and does not waste tokens.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions or annotations, the description is far from complete; an agent cannot determine operation values, proof format, or the meaning of bundle_json and payload_json. The output schema exists, so return details are less critical, but invocation preconditions and lifecycle semantics remain underspecified.

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 needed to compensate, but it does not map 'supplied proofs' to any specific parameter such as bundle_json or payload_json, nor does it explain project_id, operation, engine, now, or entity_ref. It offers only a vague hint about proof verification and inspect/advance behavior, leaving parameter construction mostly guesswork.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Inspect or advance dunning') and identifies a lifecycle scope, so an agent can recognize this as a dunning lifecycle tool. It does not differentiate from closely related siblings like company_collections or finance_stripe_dunning_recovery, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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 when-to-use guidance: the description never explains when inspection should be chosen over advancement, which sibling tools handle alternative dunning workflows, or what conditions justify calling this tool. The lifecycle phrasing implies a context but leaves all routing and selection decisions to inference.

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