finance_financial_advice_life_insurance_ca

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

The description mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some execution context. However, it does not describe side effects, potential destructive behavior (despite destructiveHint=true), or any other behavioral implications. With annotations present, the description adds minimal transparency beyond what is already known.

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 and structurally clear, with a brief intro and parameter list. However, it is somewhat redundant (repeats the tool name in the first sentence) and does not add substantive information. It is concise but at the expense of usefulness.

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 is missing key context: what the action does, what the output represents, and in what scenarios it should be invoked. Even though an output schema exists, the description provides no explanation of the returned data or the action's broader purpose, leaving the tool's role ambiguous.

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 defines 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which gives basic meaning beyond the parameter names. However, it lacks detail on expected format, constraints, or examples, and the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage). The provided semantics are too thin to be truly helpful.

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 it 'Run[s] the finance domain agent action' and repeats the tool name, but it does not explain what the action actually does or what specific outcome is achieved. The verb 'Run' is generic and there is no differentiation from sibling tools beyond the name itself, which only hints at financial advice/life insurance.

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. No conditions, prerequisites, or examples are provided. The description is purely declarative with no usage direction.

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