finance_equity_research_macro_synthesis

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds no warning or side-effect context. It mentions routing and auth scope, which is mildly useful, but it does not disclose what state changes, artifacts, or asynchronous executions may result from invoking the action.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The Args block is clear and the routing note is brief, though the overall value is limited by its vagueness.

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 destructive with two generic parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete: it omits what the action actually does, what kind of inputs drive it, and what outcome the agent should expect. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing purpose and domain semantics remain significant.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does provide minimal semantics: `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string. However, it gives no action-specific detail about what structured inputs are expected, accepted keys, or examples, so it only partially compensates for the empty schema.

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 only says to run the finance domain agent action named `equity_research_macro_synthesis`, which essentially restates the tool name without defining what that action does. It does not explain what macro synthesis is, what problem it solves, or how it differs from the many other finance and domain-agent sibling tools.

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 gives routing context (domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like finance_chat, dispatch_domain_agent, or other finance research/equity tools. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative recommendations.

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