company_skills_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavior. It says 'Build' which suggests possible mutation, but doesn't disclose whether it is read-only, whether it writes to a store, or any side effects. 'Sealed' hints at immutability but is 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?

A single dense sentence that packs many output fields. It is concise and every word is informative, though it could benefit from bullet lists. No fluff.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, yet the description leaves required parameters (project_id, bundle_json) unexplained. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid call. Output schema exists but the description still fails to cover invocation essentials.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'payload: profiles, optionally jobs, taxonomy, minimum_depth, licence_horizon_days' which appears to refer to payload_json, but it never maps these to actual parameter names or explains now, engine, operation, entity_ref, or bundle_json.

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?

States 'Build the sealed skills inventory' and then enumerates exact output components (holders, qualified workers, counts, best worker, depth status, licences lapsing, upskilling candidates). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like company_skills or company_skills_development.

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 select this tool over alternatives. It only lists what the inventory contains, not contextual triggers, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot tell whether to call this or company_skills.

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