company_growth_review

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 conveys that the tool aggregates inputs into a decision list, but it does not disclose whether this operation mutates state, whether it is read-only, what ordering logic is applied, or what happens if required plans or chains are missing.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the deliverable and the inputs without fluff. It is somewhat dense with domain jargon, but every element contributes to the overall purpose.

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?

This is a moderately complex aggregation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations. The description conveys the high-level function but is not sufficient for an agent to know how to populate operation, engine, payload_json, or other parameters, or how to interpret the resulting decision list beyond the output schema.

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 does not map 'bundle's plans' or 'persisted chains' to the actual parameters like bundle_json or project_id. It adds some conceptual context about inputs, but most parameters (operation, engine, now, entity_ref, payload_json) remain entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Build'), a clear resource ('weekly growth review'), and enumerates the components (revenue model, cohort table, coverage, objective reconciliation, allocation) that are read together into an ordered decision list. This makes the aggregation intent clear, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like company_revenue_model or company_coverage.

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?

The description implies the tool is for producing a combined weekly growth review from bundle plans and persisted chains, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the individual company_* sibling tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the intended use case.

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