finance_investment_financial_intelligence_team

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context about auth and scoping: it routes 'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.' However, it does not describe side effects, what the underlying agent action will do, or output behavior beyond what the output schema presumably provides.

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, front-loaded with the action name, and avoids filler. The Args section is compact and maps directly to the schema. It earns its place by adding meaning beyond the parameter titles, though it could be slightly richer without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks domain context: it never explains what the investment financial intelligence team does, what kinds of objectives it handles, or how it relates to the many sibling finance tools. For an agent deciding between this and dozens of similar finance_investment_* actions, the description is too thin to be complete.

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 compensate. It provides basic semantics for both parameters: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is helpful but lacks examples, expected JSON structure, or guidance on when each parameter should be used.

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 identifies the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the finance domain agent action investment_financial_intelligence_team.' It also clarifies that this goes through the domain-agent dispatcher. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling finance actions, but the action name itself is sufficiently specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other finance_investment_* tools or finance_chat. It mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but that is operational context, not usage criteria. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or recommended conditions for invocation.

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