finance_story_discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions JWT/tenant/company scoping but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. Critical behavioral traits like idempotency, auth requirements beyond scope, or error conditions are omitted.

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 front-loaded with the primary action. It is not verbose and every sentence contributes. However, it could benefit from better sectioning (e.g., separating usage from routing details) which would improve scannability.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description lacks essential context about what 'story discovery' produces, typical use cases, error handling, or integration notes. For a domain agent action, this is under-specified and forces the agent to infer too much.

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 add meaning. It labels 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON, but offers no examples, format constraints, or clarity on how they influence the action. This is minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 that the tool runs a finance domain agent action called 'finance_story_discovery', but fails to define what 'story discovery' entails, leaving the purpose somewhat vague. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity compared to sibling tools like finance_chat or finance_forecasting.

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?

The description explains how the tool routes through the platform's dispatcher but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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