finance_goal_full_lifecycle_loop

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered by metadata. The description adds that execution routes through the domain-agent dispatcher and is scoped by JWT, tenant, and company, which provides some behavioral context. It does not describe what side effects or state changes may occur, but the annotations largely carry that burden.

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 only two sentences, contains no redundant or promotional language, and directly states the action and its routing/scoping context. It is concise and well-structured.

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 that this is a generic, potentially destructive domain-agent action with no output-schema details and two underspecified parameters, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know how to invoke it effectively or interpret results. It lacks any indication of expected message content, input schema, return shape, or success/failure behavior.

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 compensate for the two parameters. It does provide minimal semantics: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, this is too generic to know what content or structure is actually expected for this specific finance action.

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 names a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('finance domain agent action goal_full_lifecycle_loop'), so the target is identifiable. However, it does not explain what the action actually accomplishes, what 'goal_full_lifecycle_loop' means, or how it differs from dozens of sibling domain-agent actions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent or recursive_agent_execute. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which hints at execution context, but does not state appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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