finance_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'produces a banker-grade memo' but does not disclose any side effects, data handling, asynchronous behavior, or limitations. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves significant processing and external data access.

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 very concise—two short paragraphs. The first front-loads the purpose and output, the second lists parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately does not detail return values but mentions 'banker-grade memo'. Parameter descriptions are complete. However, for a complex due-diligence tool, it could provide more context on execution time, data requirements, or whether it runs synchronously. Still, it covers the essential aspects for an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: message (free-text objective), target_company (required, despite schema showing anyOf/null), data_room_url (VDR root URL with examples), and focus_areas (optional list). This significantly adds meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run a finance due-diligence pass across a target's financials' and lists specific analyses (QoE adjustments, working capital, customer concentration, red flags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like finance_qoe_workbook by emphasizing a comprehensive pass that produces a 'banker-grade memo'.

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?

The description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many finance sibling tools. It implies a comprehensive due-diligence pass but lacks instructions on prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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