finance_treasury_risk_loop

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the action actually does beyond its name.

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, front-loaded with a clear header, and uses bullet points for parameters. It avoids fluff but sacrifices meaningful detail.

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 an output schema existing, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the domain agent action does, how inputs affect behavior, or when to provide inputs. This is insufficient for a tool that proxies to an action with no required parameters.

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?

The description adds meaning to parameters beyond the schema: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, it does not specify expected format for inputs or constraints for the message.

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 clearly states 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_treasury_risk_loop', which identifies the verb (run) and resource (domain agent action). However, it lacks business context to distinguish it from similar sibling tools like finance_treasury_runway_dashboard or finance_treasury_support.

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 alternatives. It only explains the routing mechanism but not the specific scenarios or objectives that would make this tool appropriate.

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