finance_investment_committee_memo

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful auth/routing context by stating the action routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not explain what destructive side effects may occur.

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: a one-line purpose statement, a routing note, and an Args list. It contains no filler, though the opening sentence is largely redundant with the tool name.

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 specialized finance action with 0% schema coverage and a destructiveHint, the description is far too thin: it does not explain what the memo action does, when an agent should invoke it, or what inputs are expected. The output schema may cover return values, but selection and invocation information is missing. The brief dispatcher and scope context prevents a score of 1.

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 must carry parameter semantics, but it only offers generic labels: 'message' is 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. There is no guidance on what a valid objective looks like, what keys the JSON should contain, or any example, making this only marginally richer than the schema.

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 only says 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_investment_committee_memo' and adds dispatcher/routing context. It never states what an investment-committee memo is, what the action produces, or how it differs from siblings like finance_ic_memo_doc or finance_board_pack. The verb is generic and the resource repeats the tool name, so this borders on tautology.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where this dispatcher call is appropriate over other finance tools. It only describes the invocation mechanism, leaving an agent unable to decide when this tool is the right choice.

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