finance_capital_allocation_analysis

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

The description explains routing mechanics but does not disclose any potential side effects or destructive behavior, despite destructiveHint being true. It is unclear whether running the action can modify data or systems.

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 compact and well-organized, with a single purpose statement and a short parameter list. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

The description provides core context but omits return-value information, examples, and any note about the tool's destructive potential. For a wrapper action, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Both parameters are described in the Args section: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string with a default. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema, though no examples or detailed formats are provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs the finance domain agent action `capital_allocation_analysis` and routes through the domain-agent dispatcher. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling finance tools, but the action name and domain scope are specific enough.

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?

It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The intended use is implied by the action name rather than stated.

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