wealth_advisory_chat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or failure modes of the underlying chat action.

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 well-structured: a first sentence naming the action, a second sentence on routing/scoping, and a clean Args block. No redundant or filler content.

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 output schema and annotations, this is adequate for a generic dispatcher call. But it leaves the agent to infer when to choose this chat over the many domain-specific tools and what valid structured inputs look like. More context about the intended use of the wealth_advisory chat action would improve completeness.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the Args block carries the full burden. It meaningfully clarifies 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, going beyond bare property names. Still, 'structured inputs' remains vague without an example or expected shape.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run the wealth_advisory domain agent action `chat`.' It is clearly distinguished from sibling domain chat tools by the 'wealth_advisory' prefix. It does not, however, describe what the chat action actually accomplishes beyond dispatching it.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative domain chat tools or more specific wealth_advisory actions. The routing/scoping sentence adds context but no comparison or exclusion criteria.

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