start_contract_to_cash_run

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent=true and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations, but omits any detail about side effects, idempotency guarantees, or what 'starting a loop' entails.

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?

Though only one sentence, it is not concise in a helpful way—it is vague and overuses proprietary terms. It does not efficiently convey essential information and reads as marketing or placeholder text.

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 tool appears to be a complex workflow starter with nested parameters, yet the description provides no context about the process, expected inputs, outputs, or failure modes. It is wholly incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has three parameters (request, company_ref, project_ref) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter meaning, purpose, or relationship. This is a critical gap given the nested request object.

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 'Start the Spring-owned loop from exact executed-agreement custody' is cryptic and jargon-heavy. It does not clearly state a verb-resource relationship or distinguish what resource is being acted on or what action is performed. Unlike sibling tools with clearer names, this offers no actionable clarity.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions that would guide selection. It fails to provide any usage guidance.

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