company_objective_plan

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 identifies input sources ('bundle's plan and the persisted chains') but says nothing about side effects, whether this is a read-only computation or a persisting operation, prerequisites, idempotency, or error conditions. 'Build' hints at a mutating/computational action but leaves the safety profile entirely 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 a single dense sentence with the main verb and resource front-loaded, and no filler words. The nested parenthetical enumeration of reconciliation components is unwieldy but each element earns its place by clarifying scope.

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?

For a complex 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, this description is incomplete. The output schema covers return values, but the meaning of domain terms ('sealed margin', 'lifted reforecast lines', 'persisted chains'), the operation parameter's behavior, and preconditions for calling the tool all go unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it barely does. It maps bundle_json to 'the bundle's plan' implicitly, and 'persisted chains' may relate to project_id/entity_ref, but the other five parameters (now, engine, operation, entity_ref, payload_json) receive no meaning beyond their bare names. The default 'list' operation is also unexplained, which is significant for a tool whose name suggests a build action.

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') and resource ('objective-versus-plan reconciliation'), listing the exact components reconciled (operating plan revenue at sealed margin vs. growth objective, revenue model vs. plan, lifted reforecast lines). This clearly distinguishes it from any sibling — no other tool in the large sibling list names an objective-versus-plan reconciliation, so an agent can tell it apart from company_operating_plan and company_revenue_model.

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?

Usage context is implied: you call this when you need the objective-versus-plan reconciliation built from the bundle's plan and persisted chains. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools, so the agent must infer applicability from the name and description alone.

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