investor_recommend_next_action

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, persistence, or permissions. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only or mutates state, which is essential for agent decision-making.

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 extremely short (9 words), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It lacks structure such as sentences explaining return values, parameter hints, or behavioral notes. Conciseness is not an excuse for incomplete information.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the recommendation, or any constraints on parameters like goal or account_ids.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the four parameters (available_cash, goal, max_options, account_ids). It only vaguely references cash contribution, failing to explain parameter meanings or usage beyond the schema.

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 states a verb ('Recommend') and resource ('next analytical action'), and hints at context ('usually for a cash contribution'). However, the term 'analytical action' is vague and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like investor_simulate_action or investor_analyze_portfolio.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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