company_price_book

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

The description mentions verification and external provider effects, but doesn't clarify whether the tool mutates state, returns data, or what the lifecycle entails. The conflicting implications of 'inspect' versus 'advance' leave side effects unclear.

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 compact and well-structured in two sentences, but brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, yet the lack of substance outweighs the benefit of conciseness.

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 apparent complexity and the presence of 7 parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the lifecycle, proofs, provider effects, or how parameters relate, and the output schema is not described.

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?

None of the 7 parameters (now, engine, operation, entity_ref, project_id, bundle_json, payload_json) are explained. The description does not map any terms to parameters, leaving their purpose entirely opaque.

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 uses vague terms like 'advance' and 'scoped lifecycle' without defining them, making it unclear what specific action the tool performs. The reference to 'supplied proofs' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar company_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or recommended scenarios.

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