wealth_advisory_chat

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

Discloses routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds security context. However, with no annotations, the description carries full burden but does not mention mutability, rate limits, or side effects. The optional inputs parameter is explained, but overall behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences and two parameter descriptions. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Adequate for a simple chat tool with optional parameters and an output schema present. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling wealth_advisory tools and does not explain what the chat agent can do, leaving the agent to rely on domain knowledge.

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?

Adds meaning by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, which the input schema (0% coverage) lacks. However, no details on the expected structure of inputs or examples are given, so improvement is possible.

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 explicitly names the domain (wealth_advisory) and action (chat), and explains it routes through a dispatcher. This makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from other domain chat tools, though it could be more specific about what the agent can help with.

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 other chat tools (e.g., commerce_chat, coding_chat) or other wealth_advisory tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions provided.

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