procurement_po_approval_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses internal routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects of running the workflow.

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 concise with two sentences and bullet-pointed arguments. It front-loads the main action and avoids unnecessary text. Could be slightly more structured but effective.

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 description covers basic usage and parameters, but given the tool is a workflow action with output schema, it lacks explanation of return values, prerequisites, and what the workflow actually does. The output schema may compensate, but description alone 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 add meaning. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, which is helpful but lacks details on expected JSON structure or constraints.

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 clearly states it runs the procurement domain agent action 'po_approval_workflow'. The name and context imply it's a purchase order approval workflow, but the description does not elaborate on what the workflow accomplishes. However, it is distinct from sibling tools by domain (procurement vs commerce).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like procurement_chat or procurement_contract_to_pay. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not specify use cases or exclusions.

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