finance_fraud_investigation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the tool performs reads, writes, what side effects exist, or what the outcome of the investigation is. It only describes routing infrastructure, leaving the agent with no behavioral insight.

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 front-loaded with the name and routing, but the opening sentence is effectively a tautology. The parameter list is clear but could be integrated more naturally. It is not overly verbose, but could be more efficient by removing redundant lines.

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 the tool's complexity (domain agent action with output schema), the description lacks critical context: it does not explain return value, typical use cases, input constraints, or how the inputs influence the investigation. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more heavily than it does.

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's parameter documentation is essential. It explains message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks examples, allowed values, or format constraints, so it is minimally adequate.

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 opens with 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_fraud_investigation', which essentially restates the tool name. It does not specify what the investigation entails or how it differs from sibling tools like finance_anomaly_investigation. The verb 'Run' is generic and provides no concrete action context.

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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is an authentication detail, not usage guidance. It does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as finance_anomaly_fraud_case_file or other finance investigation tools, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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