finance_forecast_sensitivity

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful auth/scoping context (dispatcher, JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not describe side effects, what gets changed, or any caution needed. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 uses an Args block that makes the parameter documentation scannable. The routing sentence adds context. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but overall the text is economical and front-loaded.

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 a generic schema, zero domain semantics, and a very large sibling list, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what sensitivity scenario to express, what structured inputs to provide, or when this tool is preferable to finance_forecasting or finance_forecast_interpretation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input and selection guidance.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds minimal meaning by labeling 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, it never specifies what structured inputs or objectives finance_forecast_sensitivity actually expects.

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 restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action finance_forecast_sensitivity') and provides routing mechanics. It never explains what sensitivity analysis does or what result the agent should expect. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like finance_forecasting or finance_forecast_interpretation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of sibling finance tools or the generic dispatch_domain_agent tool. The only context is that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is a routing detail rather than a usage criterion.

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