finance_treasury_support

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those flags. It adds useful context that execution is routed through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not describe any specific financial side effects the underlying action might trigger.

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 readable, using a clear Args block and no filler. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the rest of the text earns its place.

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?

The description does not explain what 'treasury support' is for, what kind of objective should be placed in `message`, or when this tool should be preferred over similar finance/treasury tools. The output schema covers return values, but selection and invocation semantics remain underspecified.

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 compensate, and it does: `message` is explained as the free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is meaningful beyond the bare schema titles and defaults, though examples or accepted input shapes would improve it further.

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 opening sentence only restates the tool name: 'Run the finance domain agent action `finance_treasury_support`.' The following clause describes routing mechanics, not what the action actually accomplishes. Nothing distinguishes this from similar finance/treasury siblings such as finance_treasury_runway_dashboard or dispatch_domain_agent.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no alternative tool is named. The routing/scope clause explains how execution happens rather than giving selection criteria or exclusions.

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