company_receivables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral facts: supplied proofs are verified and provider effects remain external. But it leaves the mutating implications of 'advance' vague and does not clarify reversibility, permissions, or internal side effects.

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 only one sentence and front-loads the core purpose efficiently. It contains no filler, though some phrasing like 'scoped lifecycle' and 'provider effects remain external' is jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this description is not sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The operation values, bundle format, proof requirements, and lifecycle semantics are all left undefined despite the output schema being present.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints that proofs are supplied somewhere. It never explains project_id, bundle_json, operation, engine, now, entity_ref, or payload_json, leaving the agent to guess which parameter carries what.

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 concrete resource (receivables) and a specific action set (inspect or advance), which makes the core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like company_collections or company_payables, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use when a caller needs to inspect or advance receivables within their lifecycle, and the proof-verification note hints at preconditions. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tools.

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