finance_goal_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. The description does not contradict these, but it also does not add context about possible side effects, what may be modified, or why the action is considered destructive. Since the annotations carry the behavioral burden, the score is acceptable but not enhanced by the description.

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 well-structured, with a brief introductory sentence and a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary repetition or filler, though the opening sentence could be more informative without adding length.

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 does not explain what the `goal_plan` action does, what output to expect, or what a good `message` or `inputs` value looks like. It also lacks any tie to the broader finance workflow. An agent would likely need additional context to invoke this tool confidently.

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 gives one-line meanings for both parameters: `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string. This is more than the schema provides, but it remains vague—there are no examples, format details, or clarification of 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 identifies the tool as running a finance domain agent action named `goal_plan`, but it does not explain what goal planning actually accomplishes or what a successful invocation produces. The phrase 'Run the finance domain agent action' is largely tautological and leaves the core purpose ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It does not state conditions under which `finance_goal_plan` should be chosen, what problems it solves, or when it should not be used. The mention of a domain-agent dispatcher is infrastructure detail, not usage guidance.

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