finance_investment_feature_engineering

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint true and readOnly false, but the description does not warn about potential side effects or destructive actions. It only says 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher' without explaining what the action does or its impact.

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 concise, with no redundant phrasing. It follows a clear structure: action name, routing context, and parameter definitions, all in a compact format.

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 lacks essential context about what 'investment_feature_engineering' actually does, its expected inputs, output interpretation, or any business logic. Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description still feels incomplete because it doesn't explain the tool's purpose beyond being a generic dispatcher.

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 brief but useful explanations for both parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. However, these are generic and don't offer action-specific examples or clarify expected structure, leaving the user to infer actual requirements.

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 clearly states it runs a specific finance domain agent action named 'investment_feature_engineering', which is a distinct verb and resource. It differentiates by being a domain-agent dispatcher action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other finance tools.

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 mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and the JWT/tenant/company scope, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other finance-related tools. It lacks a 'use this when' or 'not for' statement, making it weak on usage direction.

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