finance_deep_research_due_diligence

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

The description adds some useful context about dispatcher routing, JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose the significant behavioral traits implied by the annotations, especially destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. An agent cannot tell what side effects, external calls, or mutations this action may cause.

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 with the action name, followed by a short routing note and a clear Args list. The opening repeats the tool name, but there is no unnecessary filler or excessive detail.

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 flagged as destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent, the description is too thin. It explains how to invoke the action and what scope it runs under, but not what the action accomplishes, when it should be selected, or what consequences to expect. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing domain purpose and usage context are significant gaps.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% schema description coverage), so the description must compensate. It does: 'message' is defined as a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This gives meaningful semantics for both parameters, though an example or expected JSON shape for 'inputs' would be stronger.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Run the finance domain agent action' and names the action. However, it only explains the invocation mechanism and routing, not what 'deep research due diligence' actually does. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as finance_due_diligence, finance_due_diligence_packet, or deep_research_synthesize. The only hint is that 'message' is a free-text objective, which implies general use but provides no conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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