company_sales_capacity

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It reveals that the assessment is derived from persisted prospects and the bundle plan, but it never states whether this operation mutates data, whether it is a read-only computation, what permissions are required, or what side effects (if any) occur.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. The parenthetical is dense but every phrase contributes to defining the output's scope.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the required bundle_json/project_id contract, the meaning of operation modes, or any behavioral context an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning only to bundle_json ('bundle's plan') and partially to the prospects source, but leaves project_id, now, engine, operation, entity_ref, and payload_json unexplained or ambiguous.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and identifies the resource ('sales capacity assessment') with a detailed breakdown of its contents: quota, ramp, attainment, and owned pipeline per rep. The parenthetical also anchors the data source ('persisted prospects') and origin ('bundle's plan'), which sets it apart from sibling tools like company_pipeline_coverage and company_workforce_capacity.

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 usage guidance is provided. It does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites beyond an implicit bundle plan.

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