finance_ratio_dupont_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose safety, side effects, and access requirements. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not state if the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. No behavioral traits are revealed.

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 but front-loads implementation details (routing) rather than core purpose. It is adequately concise but could better prioritize what the tool does over how it is dispatched.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits what the tool returns. It lacks details on expected inputs (e.g., company, period) and output structure. The tool performs a specialized financial calculation, yet the description is too vague to guide correct 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 explain parameters. It describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, but provides no examples or structure. This leaves agents uncertain about valid inputs.

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 it runs a finance domain agent action but does not explain that the tool performs DuPont ratio analysis (decomposing return on equity). The purpose is inferred from the name, but the description lacks specificity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 sibling finance tools like finance_fsa_review or finance_peer_valuation_multiples. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives.

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