finance_stripe_revenue_audit

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

The description mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives minor auth context. However, destructiveHint is true and the description never warns about side effects, what gets written, or what could be altered. The annotation provides the destructive signal, but the description adds no behavioral context on top of it.

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 at two sentences with no fluff, but much of the content is redundant with the tool name. The first sentence restates the action name, and only the second sentence (routing/scope) adds new information. It is concise but not information-dense relative to its length.

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's complexity — a domain-agent dispatcher wrapper with two opaque parameters, destructiveHint true, and a very large sibling list — the description is severely incomplete. It provides no explanation of the audit workflow, no reference to the output schema, no parameter guidance, and no side-effect disclosure. An agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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% and the description adds nothing about the two parameters. 'message' and 'inputs' are completely opaque — no format, no example, no explanation of what a valid message or structured input looks like. The agent cannot determine how to construct a useful call from the description.

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 'Run the finance domain agent action `finance_stripe_revenue_audit`' which merely restates the tool name and provides a generic dispatch verb. It never explains what a revenue audit actually does, what it checks, or what outcome it produces. The name implies Stripe revenue auditing, but the description alone does not distinguish this from siblings like stripe_list_invoices, stripe_dispatch, or stripe_twin_list.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the many finance-adjacent siblings. No mention of when a revenue audit is appropriate compared to stripe_list_invoices, stripe_dispatch, quickbooks reports, or xero reports. The description provides no decision criteria, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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