company_partners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions both 'Inspect' (read) and 'advance' (write/mutate) but does not state side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to the state when advancing. The phrase 'verified receipts' hints at validation but is not explained. This is a significant gap for a tool that clearly mutates state.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verbs. It is not verbose, but it omits critical details that could be conveyed without sacrificing conciseness. Structure is acceptable but does not compensate for the lack of parameter or usage information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple operations like inspect/advance) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. The presence of an output schema helps but does not cover behavior, parameter meanings, or when to use the tool. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly with only the provided text.

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%, meaning no parameter has any description. The tool description does not mention any parameters, nor does it explain the role of project_id, bundle_json, operation, or others. Since the schema provides no help and the description ignores parameters entirely, the agent has no way to understand what values to provide for these seven parameters.

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 clear verb ('Inspect or advance') and a specific resource ('partner commissions'), and adds context ('scoped chain lifecycle and verified receipts'). It distinguishes from most sibling tools by focusing on partner commissions, though it could be more precise about what 'advance' entails. It is not a tautology and offers enough specificity to separate it from generic company_* tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. An agent is left to infer usage from the vague phrase 'scoped chain lifecycle' with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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