finance_financial_advice_personal_investments_ca

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

The description does not disclose what the action actually does, what side effects it may have, or what results to expect. The annotations already mark it as potentially destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds no behavioral clarity beyond that.

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 avoids unnecessary fluff. It clearly lists the arguments in a simple format, though the content is too vague to be fully useful.

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 lacks essential context about what the tool returns, what constitutes a valid message, and what side effects might occur. Even though an output schema exists, the description gives no practical information about how to use the tool successfully.

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 provides minimal semantics for the two parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is more than the raw schema, but it does not explain expected structure, examples, or how the two parameters interact.

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 says it 'runs' a finance domain agent action, but the actual behavior is opaque—there is no indication of what financial advice or personal investment functionality is performed. The action name suggests a domain, but the description does not clarify the tool's concrete purpose or distinguish it from other finance-related 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor any indication of what problem it solves. The mention of routing through a dispatcher is infrastructure context, not usage guidance.

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