finance_due_diligence

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

The description does not address the destructiveHint=true annotation. It says it 'runs a pass' and 'produces a memo', which suggests a read-only analysis, but the annotation indicates a potentially destructive or state-changing operation. Without any mention of side effects or clarification, the transparency is lacking.

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 concise—two sentences—and clearly structured. It efficiently conveys the action and output without unnecessary words or vague language.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output, but it omits parameter semantics and usage guidance. Given the tool has four optional parameters and an output schema, an agent might not know what inputs to provide or how to interpret the memo, making the description only partially complete.

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 description does not explain the meaning of any of the four parameters (message, target_company, data_room_url, focus_areas). The schema also has no parameter descriptions, and the tool description provides no compensation, leaving the agent to guess what each parameter should contain.

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 runs a finance due-diligence pass, lists specific analyses (quality-of-earnings adjustments, working-capital trends, customer concentration, red flags), and specifies the output as a banker-grade memo. This is a precise and actionable purpose.

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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other financial analysis tools like quickbooks reports or company_revenue). It also does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a data room URL or target company name, making it unclear how to invoke appropriately.

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