finance_collections_priority

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds context about JWT/tenant/company scoping and dispatcher routing. However, it does not disclose what side effects the action may have beyond the annotation, so it adds only modest behavioral context.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds information about routing or argument usage. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema; the only mild issue is that the action name and purpose are not elaborated.

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?

For a tool that delegates to a domain agent action, the essential missing information is what `collections_priority` is intended to accomplish and when to invoke it. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, and the annotations cover safety, but the description still leaves the agent unable to confidently distinguish this tool from sibling finance/collections tools.

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 must compensate. It does add minimal semantics by explaining `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string, which is useful for a generic agent-action wrapper. But it gives no domain-specific detail about what fields or values `inputs` should contain for `collections_priority`, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 names a specific action (`collections_priority`) and says the tool runs it through the domain-agent dispatcher, so it is not a tautology. However, it never explains what "collections_priority" actually does, what outcomes it produces, or how it differs from the many sibling finance/collections tools, leaving the purpose vague for an agent that must select among dozens of similar finance 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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusion conditions, or situations in which an agent should prefer a different finance tool such as `company_collections` or `finance_collections_to_crm_tasks`; it only states how the action is routed, not when it is appropriate.

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