company_win_loss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source data ('bundle's plans and the persisted chains') and the output dimensions, but it does not state whether this is a read-only computation, whether it mutates state, whether it requires prior artifacts to exist, or what happens if the bundle is missing. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and report dimensions, then names the input sources. It is compact and information-dense with no filler. It loses a point because the parenthetical list is long and slightly dense, but it remains efficient.

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, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema that is not described. The description explains the report's content and data sources but does not cover parameter semantics, prerequisites, side effects, or return value shape. For a tool with this complexity and zero annotation support, the description is incomplete.

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 mentions 'bundle's plans' which maps to bundle_json, and 'persisted chains' implies project_id, but it does not explain the meaning of now, engine, operation, entity_ref, or payload_json. With 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('win/loss report'), and enumerates the report's dimensions (fit band, source, sequence, channel, stage at loss, loss reason) plus the 'what to change' output. It clearly distinguishes from generic company_* tools by naming the report type and its inputs. It loses a point because it doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling tool, though the name and content make the purpose fairly unambiguous.

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 when to use it: when a win/loss report is needed and the bundle's plans and persisted chains are available. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., company_pipeline_coverage, company_review_outcomes, company_quote_outcomes). The context is inferable but not explicit, so it earns a 3.

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