onboard

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

Annotations only give generic flags (not read-only, not destructive), but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the tool fans out into multiple side effects and queues an asynchronous mapping job executed by a named subagent that reads annual reports and records suppliers/customers/competitors. It omits idempotency behavior and what happens on re-onboarding an existing company, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the high-level action and then unpacks it. Slightly dense due to the parenthetical subagent explanation, but no sentence is filler.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the side effects well. However, for a composite mutation that queues a background job feeding `next_mapping`/`complete_mapping`, it should say how the queued work surfaces and whether repeated calls are safe.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema already. The description restates 'watch their filings' (matching the `watch` param) and implies the tickers list, but adds no syntax, batch-size, or failure semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Start covering companies') plus an enumerated decomposition of what that entails: adding entities, watching filings, seeding starter packs, and queuing mapping jobs. This makes clear it is a composite onboarding action rather than a primitive like `watch` or `seed_starter_pack`, though it never names those siblings to explicitly distinguish itself.

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?

Usage is implied ('Start covering companies') but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no statement about whether this replaces calling `watch` and `seed_starter_pack` separately, and no guidance on what to do if a company is already tracked.

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