company_exception_cases

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

The description suggests potentially mixed side effects ('inspect' implies read, 'supply' could imply write) but does not explicitly state whether the tool mutates state, what data it accesses, or any safety/reversibility considerations. With no annotations, this lack of clarity leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's effects.

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 with no extraneous words, but its structure is slightly awkward due to the triple-verb phrase. It earns a 4 for being succinct.

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 omits any information about return values, output schema, or how the result relates to the input parameters. Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple verbs), this is 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?

The schema provides no descriptions for any of the seven parameters, and the tool description does not explain any of them. Required parameters (project_id, bundle_json) are not explained, so an agent cannot know what values to provide.

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 multiple verbs ('Inspect, plan or supply') and an object ('sealed exception cases receipts') but the precise function is ambiguous—it does not clarify what 'plan' means or whether these are distinct modes, nor does it specify the exact action. It provides some context ('company's selected project') but lacks a crisp primary purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools, so an agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given task.

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