finance_mna_pro_forma

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

The description mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds minimal behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, side effects, rate limits, or any constraints beyond routing. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 uses bullet-point style for args, which is clean and scannable. However, the routing line could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the minimal information provided.

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 complexity (finance domain agent action) and that no annotations or output schema details are in the description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or what kinds of objectives/inputs are valid. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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 explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds value over the bare schema (which only has titles and defaults), though it remains somewhat generic.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action finance_mna_pro_forma') without specifying what the action does or what a pro forma is. It provides no verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like finance_ma_integration_forensic or finance_dcf_lbo_spreadsheet.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many finance_* actions, but the description offers no context about when this specific M&A pro forma action is appropriate or when to choose a different tool.

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