finance_investment_broker_readiness_check

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

The annotations already communicate that this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds some useful contextual behavior by clarifying that execution routes through a dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose action-specific side effects, what gets modified, or what readiness signals are produced.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and clearly separates the mechanism from the argument documentation. It wastes few words, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required, but the description is still incomplete for practical invocation. An agent cannot determine what the readiness check evaluates, what constitutes a correct message, what structured inputs are accepted, or when this tool is preferable to sibling finance investment tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It provides brief explanations for both parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is useful but minimal; it does not describe expected JSON shape, allowable keys, examples, or how message and inputs 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 states that it runs the `investment_broker_readiness_check` finance domain agent action, which is a specific verb and resource, but it adds no business-level explanation of what a readiness check does or what outcome the agent should expect. It is close to restating the tool name and relies on the name itself to convey meaning, so it is not fully self-describing.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling finance actions, nor any mention of prerequisites, alternative tools, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The only contextual clue is that it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher, which says nothing about selection criteria.

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