finance_investment_committee_memo

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not mention what the tool actually does (e.g., create or read? side effects? auth requirements beyond JWT?). No mention of return values or outcomes.

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 relatively short but front-loaded with a redundant first sentence. It earns its place but could be more concise by combining routing info with purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (invoking a domain agent), the description lacks essential context: what does the agent do? What kind of memo is produced? With 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full capability.

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 provides basic meaning for parameters: 'message' is a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some clarity beyond the schema, but the descriptions are vague and do not specify expected formats or examples.

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 merely repeats the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action `finance_investment_committee_memo`'), offering no explicit statement of what the tool does or what it produces. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like finance_board_memo or finance_fsa_review.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description is silent on usage scenarios.

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