finance_saas_metrics

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

The description adds some useful behavioral context by noting it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description gives no hint of side effects, external side effects, or what may be mutated, though it does not contradict 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 short and clearly laid out, with the routing context and parameter descriptions separated. It wastes few words, though the opening sentence is largely redundant with the tool name.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks the essential semantic content needed to invoke the tool correctly: what the action actually does, what kind of objectives it supports, and what structured inputs are expected. An agent would have to guess or rely on external knowledge 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining the parameters. It only offers generic labels: message is a "free-text objective" and inputs is an "optional JSON string", without any finance_saas_metrics-specific structure, examples, or expected keys. An agent still cannot determine what to put in inputs or how message should be phrased.

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 says only "Run the finance domain agent action `finance_saas_metrics`", which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what finance SaaS metrics are, what the action computes, or what the agent should expect. It provides no distinction from sibling finance tools such as finance_saas_board_pack or finance_query_data, so an agent cannot infer when this specific tool is relevant.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dispatch_domain_agent or other finance_* tools. The routing note is descriptive, not prescriptive, and no exclusions or selection conditions are provided.

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