finance_xero_org_overview

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

Annotations already carry the risk profile (not read-only, destructive, open-world), and the description adds the behavioral context that it executes via the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not contradict the annotations, though it also doesn't elaborate on what side effects the overview action may cause.

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, front-loads the operation, and lists the two arguments without filler. It earns its place but is not rich enough to warrant a 5.

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 simple two-parameter dispatcher with an output schema, the routing and argument guidance are adequate as a baseline. However, it omits any description of what the xero_org_overview action does or when an agent should select it, leaving an important gap for correct invocation among many sibling tools.

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%, so the description must define the parameters, and it does: message is a free-text objective, inputs is an optional JSON string. This is minimal but useful; it doesn't provide examples or enumerate valid JSON keys, so an agent still has to guess at the structured input format.

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 states a clear operation ('Run the finance domain agent action') but identifies the resource only by the action's name, so it doesn't actually explain what an 'org overview' produces. It is more than a pure tautology because it names the dispatcher/routing layer, but it doesn't distinguish the tool's domain effect from siblings like xero_agent_org_profile or xero_get_organisation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many related Xero/finance siblings or dispatch_domain_agent. The phrase 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher' describes mechanism, not selection criteria. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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