company_standing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It claims 'supplied proofs are verified' and 'provider effects remain external,' but these are vague. It does not state whether the 'advance' operation is destructive, whether permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what side-effects may 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?

The description is only one sentence and front-loads the main actions, which is concise. However, phrases like 'through its scoped lifecycle' and 'provider effects remain external' are obscure and take up space without adding usable clarity.

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, non-annotated tool with 0% schema description coverage, this description is far from complete. It omits the meaning of the required bundle_json, the available operation values, the lifecycle states involved, and any side-effect or precondition details. The output schema helps with return shape but not with invocation semantics.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what operation, bundle_json, payload_json, entity_ref, engine, or now mean, nor what values are acceptable for operation. The agent cannot determine how to construct a valid call from this description.

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 the resource ('standing' and its lifecycle) and the actions 'inspect or advance', so it is not a tautology. However, it never defines what 'standing' is or what 'advance' means, and it does not differentiate the tool from the many company_* sibling tools. The purpose is only vaguely conveyed.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide between this tool and siblings like company_launch, company_readiness, or company_provisioning.

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