next_mapping

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: calling this leases a company (so state changes despite no destructive intent) and links recorded before complete_mapping are tagged as curator links rather than final. It omits important mechanics — lease duration/expiry, whether the lease is exclusive to one agent, and what is returned or errors when the queue is empty.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the downstream dependency second; nothing is wasted. The awkward leading indentation from the source string is a minor presentational blemish, not a content issue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the lease and the curator-link state. For a work-queue lease tool it still leaves out the empty-queue case, lease lifetime, and whether concurrent agents can collide — gaps an agent needs to handle 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to compensate for and the baseline is 4. The description correctly conveys that the item is chosen by the server rather than specified by the caller.

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?

Specific verb (lease) plus resource (next onboarded company to map from its annual report), which an agent can distinguish from next_distillation and complete_mapping. The domain term 'mapping' is left undefined, so the exact work product is only partly clear.

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?

Implies this is the entry point for a mapping work cycle and names complete_mapping as the terminator, which is useful sequencing guidance. It never states when this should be preferred over sibling queue-pullers like next_distillation or onboard, nor what to do if no company is available.

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