company_readiness

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits: 'Read-only' (no mutation side effects) and 'JSON' (return format). However, it does not explain what 'blocked' means, how blocking is determined, or what happens when no providers are connected — the agent must infer this behavior.

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?

One sentence plus two fragments totaling roughly 15 words. Every element earns its place: the operation, the inputs, the output, the response format, and the safety profile. The primary action is front-loaded and there is zero filler.

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?

For a simple read-only comparison tool with an output schema present, the core behavior is covered. Remaining gaps: no explanation of the 'now' parameter, no format guidance for bundle_json, no usage versus sibling tools, and no description of edge behavior when providers are missing. The output schema offsets some obligation to describe return values, but the gaps still matter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives partial meaning to the required parameter bundle_json by tying it to 'the bundle's engines', which is the core input. However, the 'now' parameter is entirely unexplained despite having a default, and the expected JSON structure of bundle_json is not described. The description does about half the compensation work.

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 ('Compare'), the two compared resources (bundle's engines, account's connected providers), and the expected outcome (name the blocked engines). This distinguishes it from the many financial company_* siblings (company_revenue, company_payables, etc.), though it does not differentiate it from closer readiness-style tools like get_reference_company_onboarding_readiness or inspect_agent_learning_readiness, and 'blocked engines' is not further defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus plausible alternatives such as get_engine_inventory, list_engine_states, company_coverage, or inspect_agent_learning_readiness. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated; an agent gets no help choosing between this and the other engine/readiness-related siblings.

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