finance_treasury_support

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company). It does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, side effects, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a generic action runner.

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 three clear sections: action, routing scope, and args. No redundant information, but could be slightly more efficient.

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 has an output schema (unknown content) and two optional parameters, the description is minimal but functional. It does not explain the action's purpose or output, but the output schema likely covers returns.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds value beyond the schema, but lacks detail on inputs format or constraints.

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 the tool runs the finance_treasury_support domain agent action, specifying the verb 'Run' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic runner for a specific action, though it doesn't explain what the action does.

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 like dispatch_domain_agent or other finance tools. The description only explains routing behavior, not usage context or prerequisites.

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