finance_capital_allocation_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some auth context. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, what it returns, or any other behavioral traits beyond invocation. The existence of an output schema is noted but not described.

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 concise with three short sections: purpose, routing context, and arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action. No extraneous words, though it could be more informative without being longer.

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 that the tool invokes a domain agent action, the description lacks context about the domain agent, what capital allocation analysis accomplishes, and expected outcomes. The output schema exists but is not elaborated. The description feels incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand when and how to effectively use this tool.

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%, so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It adds that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string. This provides meaning beyond the schema's type and default, but lacks examples or constraints. Baseline is 3 due to coverage, and the description meets that minimally.

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 it runs the finance domain agent action `capital_allocation_analysis`, which is a specific verb+action. However, it does not explain what capital allocation analysis entails, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like `finance_capital_structure_cost_of_capital`. The purpose is minimally clear but lacks specificity.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool should or should not be used. Among many sibling finance tools, the description offers no comparative guidance.

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