finance_pricing_decomposition

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing via dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying authentication but nothing about side effects, mutability, or safety. The tool's behavior (e.g., read-only vs write) is completely opaque.

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 relatively short, but the first line is nearly redundant with the tool name. The routing details are boilerplate that may not be essential. No structural issues, but the content could be more efficient.

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 has an output schema, return values are not required, but the description fails to explain the tool's core purpose beyond the name. It does not integrate with sibling context or provide enough information for correct selection. The agent likely needs additional context to use this tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter intent. It explains message is 'free-text objective' and inputs is 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', but does not specify expected structure, valid keys, or examples. This is only marginally more informative than the schema itself.

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 tool name 'finance_pricing_decomposition' suggests a specific finance action for pricing decomposition, and the description states it runs this domain agent action. However, the description does not elaborate on what the decomposition entails, leaving some ambiguity. The verb-run+resource is clear but lacks semantic depth.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many other finance_* sibling tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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