finance_investment_alpha_discovery

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful routing context: it executes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not describe potential side effects or what an invocation may change, but the annotations already carry the core safety profile, so this does not need to be fully restated.

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 core action, followed by routing context and a compact argument list. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the Args section is clearly structured. It loses one point only because it lacks a brief usage example or sibling differentiation that would make the same length more valuable.

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?

For a two-parameter generic dispatcher tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks guidance on what kind of objective message is appropriate, what inputs should contain, what side effects may occur, and how it differs from the many related finance_investment_* tools. An agent could invoke it blindly but cannot reliably decide when it is the right tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does add meaning: message is 'free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is better than the bare schema, but it does not describe what structured inputs are expected, what keys they may contain, or how message and inputs interact. Partial compensation, but not complete.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Run the finance domain agent action `investment_alpha_discovery`.' However, it never explains what alpha discovery actually does, only that it runs a named domain-agent action. This provides basic identification but not enough functional clarity to distinguish it from other finance investment siblings like finance_investment_trading_signal or finance_investment_alpha_training_pipeline.

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 versus alternatives. It only describes the mechanism—routing through the domain-agent dispatcher—and the two arguments. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or related sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when this action is appropriate.

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