company_provisioning

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose side effects. 'Advance' implies mutation, but the description does not specify whether it creates, updates, or destroys resources, nor does it mention any irreversible actions or required permissions. The term 'inspect' suggests a read operation, but the coexistence of both verbs leaves behavioral impact ambiguous.

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 short sentence, so it is concise in length, but it packs too few meaningful details into that sentence. It is not front-loaded with the most important information; instead, it uses abstract jargon ('scoped lifecycle', 'verified receipts') that adds no explanatory value. The brevity is acceptable, but the content is insufficient to be helpful.

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 tool has seven parameters, two required, and an output schema, yet the description does not explain the purpose of the parameters, the nature of the output, or the domain-specific terms. There is no information about what 'provisioning' entails, what a 'verified receipt' is, or how the lifecycle works. This is completely inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The description does not reference any of the seven parameters (project_id, bundle_json, operation, entity_ref, payload_json, engine, now). Schema descriptions are absent, so no parameter meaning is conveyed. An agent cannot determine what inputs are required or how they affect the operation.

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 two vague verbs ('inspect or advance') and a generic noun ('provisioning') without clarifying what 'provisioning' refers to. It does not distinguish from sibling tools that also involve company lifecycle stages (e.g., company_launch, company_listings). The phrase 'scoped lifecycle and verified receipts' is too abstract to convey the actual function.

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 over alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, nor does it reference sibling tools for contrast. An agent would have no way to decide if this is the right tool for a given task.

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