company_open_to_buy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful policy behavior: run-down, discontinue, and unmeasured SKUs are never bought; funding is capped by the cash envelope's one-time capacity and the plan's maximum spend. It does not state whether the operation persists data, requires permissions, or is reversible, but the algorithmic constraints are substantial and useful.

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 one overstuffed run-on sentence with nested, hard-to-parse clauses such as 'capped by the plan's maximum spend' and 'the supplied one or the latest projected treasury period's.' It front-loads the main action but would be far more readable split into separate sentences for output contents, policy exclusions, and payload fields.

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?

The high-level algorithm and exclusion rules are covered, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, for a complex 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, omitting the semantics of the required parameters is a major completeness gap that would prevent a correct invocation.

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, but it only adds meaning for the optional payload fields (window_start, window_end, previous_window_start, budget_envelope). It says nothing about the required project_id or bundle_json, which are likely the core inputs; an agent cannot determine what bundle_json should contain from this text.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Build the sealed open-to-buy list for the window,' then enumerates the list's contents (per-SKU demand, order units, priority, funding). It also names hard exclusions ('run-down, discontinue, and unmeasured SKUs are never bought'), which distinguishes it from sibling inventory/treasury tools. Though jargon-heavy, the core function is unmistakable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives. With hundreds of sibling company_* tools like company_demand_budget, company_cover, and company_treasury, an agent gets no direct help choosing this tool over those. The window-focused language implies procurement-planning use, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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