company_grades

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

Explicitly states 'Releases and hires nothing,' which clarifies a non-destructive scope. However, it does not disclose whether the tool writes to the ledgers or only reads/proposes, leaving side effects partially unspecified.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no redundant phrases. It conveys the core purpose in two sentences.

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?

While the purpose and a key non-action are stated, the tool lacks parameter explanations, output details, and usage context. This makes it incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke it 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?

The description does not explain any of the three parameters (now, project_id, bundle_json). With zero schema descriptions, the description must compensate but does not, leaving parameter semantics largely unknown.

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?

States a specific operation—grading workers and proposing roster revisions—and identifies the resource (company workers from persisted ledgers). It is distinguishable from sibling tools by focusing on grades/roster, though it does not name alternatives.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to select this tool over sibling company_* tools. The phrase 'against memory priors when present' hints at an internal condition, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are stated.

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