brc_check_transaction_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions returning warnings but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavioral details are insufficient for an agent to fully understand side effects or prerequisites.

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 sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (two parameters, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context about its pre-check role and the types of workflows it applies to. However, it could benefit from indicating what specific warnings are returned.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('workflow' and 'companyName'), each with descriptions. The tool description adds context about VAT and payment terms but does not enrich the parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 explicitly states that the tool checks BRC company processing settings before VAT-sensitive or payment-terms-sensitive workflows, and returns warnings to be shown before creating or changing records. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'brc_company_readiness_check' or 'brc_get_company_processing_settings'.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('before a VAT-sensitive or payment-terms-sensitive workflow' and 'before creating or changing records'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'brc_company_readiness_check'.

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