resolve_executed_commercial_agreement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's mention of 'immutable custody' reinforces this but adds no new behavioral context such as error cases, scope limits, or side effects.

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 filler and the key action is placed first. It is concise, though the density of jargon reduces its clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is not complete enough for an agent to know whether it should call this or get_executed_commercial_agreement, what the three refs refer to, or how to obtain them. The domain-specific 'immutable custody' concept needs explanation that is absent.

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, but it only hints at the meaning of agreement_ref ('portable provider-derived agreement ref'). company_ref and project_ref are left completely unexplained, and the relationship between the three refs is unclear.

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 verb and identifies a resource ('immutable custody') and a lookup key ('portable provider-derived agreement ref'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'immutable custody' is unexplained domain jargon, and the description does not differentiate this from the closely named siblings get_executed_commercial_agreement and register_executed_commercial_agreement.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not state that this should be used when only a provider-derived agreement ref is available, nor does it mention alternatives like get_executed_commercial_agreement.

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