company_fundraise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at two modes (inspect vs advance) but never states side effects, required authorization, reversibility, or what 'verified receipts' means. This is similar to the update_drive case, which scored 2 for an opaque mutation description.

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 one-sentence description is short and front-loaded with the main action, but brevity is not backed by clarity. The jargon ('scoped chain lifecycle', 'verified receipts') adds noise rather than structure, making the sentence less useful than its length suggests.

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 seven parameters, an explicit operation mode (default 'list'), and no annotations or schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It does not cover valid operations, how to structure bundle_json, what 'advance' entails, or how the output schema relates to the lifecycle. An agent would have no reliable way to call this tool 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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the seven parameters. The required fields project_id and bundle_json, plus operation, payload_json, engine, and entity_ref, are entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot infer how to construct valid arguments. This is as bad as the LOW example with undocumented parameters.

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 specific domain (capital rounds) and two verbs (inspect/advance), which is more than a tautology but less than a clear statement. The phrase 'scoped chain lifecycle and verified receipts' is jargon-heavy and does not clarify the actual scope of the tool, nor does it differentiate it from related company_* tools like company_equity or company_cap_table.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the enormous sibling list, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent unable to decide between company_fundraise and related tools.

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