finance_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope), but does not describe what the underlying action does or what side effects to expect.

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 uses a clean Args block. Every sentence contributes either the action being run or routing/parameter context, with no filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the action's actual purpose and semantics remain opaque. An agent is told to run 'plan_domain_intelligence' but not what that entails, when it is appropriate, or how to formulate a good message/inputs. The 0% schema coverage is only minimally compensated, so the description is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 gives basic meanings for both parameters: 'Free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string' for inputs. However, it does not explain the expected structure of the JSON or any message conventions, so the compensation is partial.

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 opens with 'Run the finance domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence', which is a specific verb plus resource and clearly scopes the tool to the finance domain. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling domain-intelligence tools, but the action name is unambiguous enough for selection.

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 about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope' explains execution mechanics but not selection criteria, and no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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