get_golden_loop_economic_closure

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description clarifies it reads 'canonical cost completeness and settlement state', which adds a bit of context about what data is returned. But no additional behavioral traits like pagination, freshness, or error conditions are disclosed. This is acceptable for a simple read tool with annotations.

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 with no waste. It front-loads the verb 'Read' and specifies the exact resource. Appropriate length for a simple getter.

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 simple read with an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is no indication of what 'Golden Loop' means or how it relates to siblings, which matters in a toolset with many Golden Loop tools. But with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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 schema only lists three string refs (company_ref, project_ref, run_ref) with no descriptions. The tool description doesn't explain what each ref refers to or how they combine. However, the pattern of company_ref/project_ref/run_ref is highly conventional across the toolset, and parameter names are self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is fair since no additional semantics are provided beyond obvious naming.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('Spring's canonical cost completeness and settlement state for any Golden Loop'). This clearly conveys a read operation on a particular state object. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_golden_loop_catalog_version or get_contract_to_cash_run, but the resource scope is specific enough.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is for reading Golden Loop economic closure state, but there are many Golden Loop sibling tools (get_golden_loop_catalog_version, get_golden_loop_declaration_version, etc.) and no conditions or exclusions are given.

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