company_workforce_capacity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the output is a 'sealed' plan and lists its contents, but it never states whether this is a pure computation or a persisted/mutating action, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or idempotency.

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 entire description is one dense, run-on sentence that mixes purpose, input payload, and an exhaustive output list. It front-loads the core verb, but the long enumeration of metrics ('utilisation, shortfall, and bench... peak week... bench cost') makes it hard to scan.

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 tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. The required `bundle_json` is never explicitly tied to the described payload, and the roles of `operation`, `now`, `engine`, and `entity_ref` are missing. The detailed output list helps, but input-side context 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 only hints that the payload includes 'profiles, jobs, optionally taxonomy and weeks' without mapping that to `bundle_json` or `payload_json`, and it leaves `engine`, `operation`, `now`, and `entity_ref` completely 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 opens with a specific verb ('Build') and a concrete resource ('the sealed weekly workforce capacity plan'), then enumerates exactly what the plan contains. This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling planning tools like company_sales_capacity or solver_assign_resources without needing to name them.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling tools are referenced. The agent must infer selection context from the name and contents alone, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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