finance_capital_allocation_loop

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

The description adds routing and authorization-scope context ('routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain the operational effects of a destructive/open-world loop, such as what may be changed, destroyed, or triggered.

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 front-loaded: the action, routing/scope, and argument semantics are each covered in a few sentences with no filler. The Args block is cleanly structured and easy to scan.

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?

This is a thin dispatcher definition. It never explains what a capital allocation loop is, whether it is asynchronous, what side effects to expect, or when it should be preferred over the many finance siblings. Even with annotations and an output schema, the description leaves too much to inference for correct selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates minimally by labeling message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string. This is better than the bare schema, but it does not specify what structured inputs are expected or give examples, leaving a clear gap for correct invocation.

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 starts with a specific operation: 'Run the finance domain agent action `capital_allocation_loop`', so an agent knows this is an execution wrapper for that named action. It does not describe what the loop actually accomplishes, and it does not differentiate among the many finance sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as finance_capital_allocation_analysis, dispatch_domain_agent, or other finance loop tools. The only contextual hint is that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is not sufficient selection guidance.

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