company_obligations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only lists vague action verbs. It does not explain whether 'supply' creates or mutates data, what 'plan' produces, what side effects occur, what the operation modes do, or what happens to existing obligations receipts. This is insufficient for an agent deciding whether to invoke a mutating workflow.

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 has no filler, so it is 'concise' in word count. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, and the single sentence provides no structured breakdown of the three claimed behaviors or the operation-driven nature of the tool.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, 2 required JSON-related fields, an operation selector, and no annotations or parameter descriptions. The description only gives a vague one-liner and fails to explain what 'sealed obligations receipts' are, how operation/bundle_json/payload_json interact, or what an agent should expect when calling it. The presence of an output schema covers return values but not the substantial input and usage gaps.

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 compensates for none of it. Required parameters project_id and bundle_json are not explained, and the meaning of bundle_json, payload_json, engine, now, entity_ref, and operation is left entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions. The phrase 'selected project' only weakly maps to project_id and gives no semantics for the rest.

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 names a resource ('sealed obligations receipts') and implies several actions (inspect, plan, supply), so it is not a tautology. However, 'sealed obligations receipts' is unexplained jargon and the three verbs blur the actual operation, especially since the schema has an 'operation' parameter defaulting to 'list'. It does not clearly differentiate this from sibling tools like company_commitments or company_agreements.

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 only usage context is 'within the company's selected project', which hints at project scoping but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no stated exclusions, no conditions, and no mention of when 'inspect', 'plan', or 'supply' should be chosen.

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