preview_charge_onboarding_apply

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only and writes nothing,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions what the output includes (obligation, instances, schedule summary, warnings). Without annotations, this is helpful, though it lacks details on auth or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the key point. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on return format or parameter interplay. It mentions output components but not their structure, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The description does not explain any parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must infer parameter semantics from context. The description only mentions the overall preview purpose, not how candidate_id, dates, or horizon_days affect the output.

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 what the tool does: 'Preview the canonical obligation and dated instances that applying would create.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like 'apply_charge_onboarding_candidate' by emphasizing it is a read-only preview.

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 says 'Use this to show a reviewer exactly what would land in the cash-flow model before committing to apply,' which provides a clear use case. It implicitly guides when to use this tool over the apply tool, but could be more explicit about when not to use.

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