company_suppression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful details: supplied proofs are verified, and provider effects remain external. However, it does not explain whether 'advance' is reversible, what lifecycle state changes occur, what permissions are required, or what happens if proof verification fails.

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 a single semicolon-joined sentence that front-loads the purpose and then adds two behavioral caveats without filler. It loses a point because 'scoped lifecycle' is jargon-heavy and compresses too much domain-specific meaning into an unclear phrase.

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 lifecycle tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, this is not enough information. The lifecycle stages, operation semantics, proof format, and required project/bundle context are all unspecified. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input side remains severely under-documented.

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% for 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely gestures at 'supplied proofs' and external provider effects; it does not explain operation values, project_id, bundle_json structure, entity_ref, payload_json, or the now/engine fields. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid invocation.

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 action ('inspect or advance') and resource ('suppression') within a 'scoped lifecycle', which is more concrete than a tautology and distinguishes it from generic company tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like company_wind_down or company_closure, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 phrase 'inspect or advance suppression through its scoped lifecycle' implies the intended use case, giving an agent some context for when to call this tool. But there are no explicit criteria, exclusions, or named alternatives, so the agent must infer usage rather than being guided to the correct choice.

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