finance_autocompany_finance_loop

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

The annotations already indicate `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`, but the description adds no further behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or any risks. The phrase 'Run' implies action but the consequences of running the loop are not described, leaving the agent under-informed despite the annotation warnings.

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 highly concise, with no redundant words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a brief context sentence and a simple parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous detail.

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?

While the description explains the routing and high-level purpose, it omits crucial context: what the loop actually does, what output it returns (despite having an output schema), any side effects or error conditions, and how it fits into the broader finance domain. For a tool marked as destructive, this lack of functional and outcome detail makes it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 provides brief semantic hints for both parameters ('message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string') that go beyond the type-only schema. However, it does not explain the expected structure of the JSON string, possible keys, or how the message and inputs interact. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but remains shallow.

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 it 'Run[s] the finance domain agent action `autocompany_finance_loop`', providing a specific verb and the exact resource/action name. It also explains the routing mechanism, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many similar sibling actions.

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 gives some context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and the JWT/tenant/company scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There are many finance-related sibling tools (e.g., `company_chaos`, `xero_intake_bill`) with no comparative guidance. The usage conditions are implied rather than stated.

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