company_rate_card

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists outputs but does not disclose whether 'build' persists or seals data, whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. 'Sealed' hints at finalization but the side effects remain 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 action is front-loaded and the content is information-dense, but the description is one long run-on sentence with nested parentheticals. It would be more agent-readable as a short paragraph or bullets, though no words are entirely wasted.

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 output schema exists, so return-value structure is partially covered, but the tool is complex with seven parameters and no annotations. The description omits required parameter semantics, usage alternatives, and any behavioral or side-effect disclosure, leaving important gaps for an agent deciding how and when to invoke it.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning for a subset of the payload ('optional window_start, window_end, profiles'). It does not explain the required project_id and bundle_json, nor the operation, entity_ref, engine, or now parameters, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from the description alone.

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 action ('Build the sealed rate card') and resource ('from the services margin over the window'), and it enumerates the computed outputs: loaded cost, bill rate, margin, market position, and recommendation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like company_services_margin or company_price_catalog, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them and relies on jargon like 'sealed rate card.'

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 the tool is used when a rate card needs to be built from services margin data over a window, but it never states when not to use it or names alternatives. There are many pricing/margin siblings in the context, yet no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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