finance_plan_domain_intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some implementation context, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the action is read-only or mutates state. The behavior is only vaguely described.

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 with three sentences plus an Args list. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Some detail about routing is implementation-specific but not overly verbose. Overall, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 (generic dispatch action) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the output represents, despite an output schema existing. The purpose is ambiguous, and the tool's role in the domain is not well-positioned against alternatives.

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 that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs, adding meaning beyond the schema's default values and titles. However, no examples or constraints are given, so it is minimally adequate.

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 states 'Run the finance domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name with domain prefix. It does not explain what 'plan_domain_intelligence' actually accomplishes or produces, leaving the functional purpose unclear. Compared to similar tools across domains, it fails to distinguish its specific role.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternative finance tools or other domain intelligence actions. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate usage. The description also lacks mention of any alternatives or when not to use it.

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