wealth_advisory_plan_domain_intelligence

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 safety profile is established. The description adds useful context that the call is routed through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which signals delegation and scoping behavior beyond what annotations state. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't disclose what effects the 'plan' action has on state, which the destructive hint implies.

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-loaded with the action verb, and every line earns its place: the mechanism sentence, the scope sentence, and the two parameter lines. No filler or repetition of schema defaults. It reads efficiently, though its brevity is partly a result of thin 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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description is incomplete for an agent operating in a sibling pool of ~15 identical `*_plan_domain_intelligence` tools plus generic dispatchers. The agent cannot tell what domain intelligence planning entails in the wealth_advisory context, how this differs from `wealth_advisory_chat`, or why it would route here instead of `dispatch_domain_agent`. The core selection-relevant information is absent.

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. It does provide basic semantics for both parameters — 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string — which is more than the bare schema titles offer. However, the guidance is skeletal: there is no hint about what structured inputs `plan_domain_intelligence` expects, what objective phrasing works, or what format the JSON should take.

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 'Run the wealth_advisory domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what the action actually does or produces. It adds routing mechanics (domain-agent dispatcher, JWT/tenant/company scope) but never states the operational purpose of 'plan_domain_intelligence' — what a plan is, what intelligence it gathers, or what outcome the caller receives.

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 is given on when to select this tool over alternatives. The sibling list contains dozens of near-identical `*_plan_domain_intelligence` tools (commerce, crm, finance, etc.) plus `dispatch_domain_agent`, `wealth_advisory_chat`, and three other wealth_advisory-specific actions, yet the description names none of them and gives no exclusions or selection criteria.

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