finance_query_data

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful context by noting that the call routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose the destructive or open-world behavior implied by the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then routing context, then argument definitions. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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?

For a generic dispatcher wrapper with an output schema and existing annotations, the basic invocation details are present: what to run, how routing works, and what the arguments mean. The main gap is the absence of a plain-language explanation of the finance query_data action's capabilities and when to use it, which matters for tool selection among many finance-domain siblings.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It does provide one-line semantics for both args: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is helpful but minimal, and it does not specify allowed input shapes or how message and inputs interact.

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 a specific action: 'Run the finance domain agent action query_data.' The 'finance' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling domain query tools such as crm_query_data, notion_query_data, and monday_query_data. However, it does not explain what query_data actually does, leaving the action's domain semantics somewhat opaque.

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 prefer finance_query_data over finance_chat, dispatch_domain_agent, or the many finance_* business tools. The routing/scoping note adds implementation context but not selection criteria.

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