company_working_capital

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the computation pipeline, persisted inputs, and the recommendation logic, which is useful. It does not clarify side effects of 'sealed' (e.g., immutability, overwrite behavior), required permissions, or idempotency, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 one dense run-on sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the primary action and artifact. However, the long clause chain hurts scannability and could easily be split into a short purpose statement plus a bulleted list of computed components.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves critical invocation details unresolved, especially what bundle_json contains and what project_id refers to. It covers the analytical logic well, but an agent would still struggle to construct a correct call.

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 only clarifies the payload's optional window_start and window_end. The two required parameters, project_id and bundle_json, plus engine, operation, entity_ref, and now, are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Build the sealed working capital document') and enumerates the exact metrics computed: DSO, DPO, days of stock, cash conversion cycle, cash tied up, and per-lever cash freed. It is clear and detailed, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage context by specifying the window, persisted data sources, and the recommendation outcome, so an agent can infer when this tool is relevant. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, which matters given the large set of finance/working-capital sibling tools.

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