company_pipeline_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Build' and lists inputs and computed metrics, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, mutates or persists state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 conveys the core purpose and inputs without fluff. It is compact but dense, and could be improved by breaking out usage or parameter guidance, though its size is appropriate for the information it does contain.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely and correctly. It omits required input semantics, side effects, and invocation preconditions. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity but does not fill these 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 there are 7 parameters, yet the description only hints at one input ('the bundle's plan' likely maps to bundle_json) and an implicit persisted state. It does not explain project_id, payload_json, engine, operation, entity_ref, or now. Minimal added value beyond the raw schema field names.

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 specific verb ('Build'), a concrete resource ('pipeline coverage assessment'), and enumerates the assessment contents (weighted/open pipeline vs revenue target, gaps in prospects, touches, heads) and data sources ('bundle's plan', 'persisted chains'). This clearly distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like company_coverage or company_sales_capacity.

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 when to use the tool—when a pipeline coverage assessment is needed from a bundle plan and persisted chains—but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative sibling tool to prefer. The context is clear enough to infer intent, but not enough to route around competing tools.

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