company_fulfilment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at both a read operation ('inspect') and a mutating operation ('advance') but does not disclose side effects, permanence, permissions, or what 'verified receipts' implies. This is insufficient for a tool that can apparently change state.

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 short sentence, so it is not wordy, but it is not 'front-loaded' with the most useful information. Phrases like 'scoped chain lifecycle' and 'verified receipts' take up space without clarifying agent behavior, making the brevity a liability rather than a strength.

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?

With seven parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and a dual read/mutate purpose, the description is far too thin to support correct invocation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the absence of input semantics, operation semantics, or state-transition guidance.

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%, yet the description explains none of the seven parameters. Names and defaults like 'operation', 'bundle_json', 'entity_ref', and 'payload_json' hint at their roles, but the description adds no meaning about formats, allowed values, relationships, or which parameters are relevant for each operation.

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 identifies a resource ('order fulfilments') and two plausible actions ('inspect' or 'advance'), which is more than a tautology. However, the phrasing is vague and jargon-heavy ('scoped chain lifecycle', 'verified receipts') and does not differentiate from any sibling tool or explain what either action concretely does.

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 inspect versus advance, when to choose this tool over alternatives, or what prerequisites exist. The description leaves the agent to infer that the 'operation' parameter selects the behavior, but it never says which values are valid or what context calls for each.

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