finance_deep_research_due_diligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope, but does not disclose side effects, read/write nature, rate limits, or any behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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, but includes boilerplate about routing and scope that does not add value. It could be more focused on the tool's core purpose and parameters. It is not well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists but is not described. The description does not explain return values, how to structure inputs beyond basic types, or any expected behavior. For a tool with two parameters and an output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, though it remains minimal. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 "finance domain agent action `finance_deep_research_due_diligence`" but does not explain what due diligence entails. It is vague and does little more than restate the name, failing to differentiate the tool from siblings like `finance_due_diligence` or `finance_due_diligence_packet`.

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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Among many similar finance tools, the description offers no help in selecting this one.

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