finance_subscription_health_to_expansion

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

The description adds auth/scoping and routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope, domain-agent dispatcher) beyond what the annotations provide. However, it does not explain side effects, risk, or duration despite destructiveHint: true; the annotations lower the baseline bar, and the added context is useful but limited.

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 mostly easy to scan, but the opening sentence merely restates the tool name. The args bullet list is efficient and avoids fluff, though the overall definition is too thin to earn top marks.

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 high-level domain-agent action with near-identical siblings, the description does not tell the agent what objective this action serves, when to pick it, or what a successful invocation looks like. The output schema reduces the return-value burden, but the success criteria and domain purpose are still unclear.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description gives useful but minimal glosses: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but it does not explain expected structure, semantics, or example content, so it does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 only says to run an action with the same name as the tool and explains routing mechanics; it does not state what the action actually does. An agent cannot tell what the tool accomplishes or how it relates to sibling finance/customer-success actions.

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 given about when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as finance_stripe_subscription_health, finance_subscription_renewal_sweep, customer_success_expansion_playbook, or dispatch_domain_agent. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints.

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