wealth_advisory_wealth_kyc_risk_intake

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the action routes through the dispatcher under a specific scope, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose what side effects occur, what data is created or changed, or any consequences of invocation.

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: a short intro, one sentence about routing, and a clear args list. There is no fluff or redundancy beyond the first sentence restating the action name. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has two optional free-form parameters and exists among a large set of wealth-advisory and KYC-related tools. The description gives no concrete example of a useful message, no input structure hints, no return-value information despite an output schema, and no differentiation from siblings. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It does say message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is a starting point, but it gives no concrete details about expected JSON structure, allowed keys, or how those structured inputs relate to KYC risk intake.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Run the wealth_advisory domain agent action `wealth_kyc_risk_intake`.' It does not explain what KYC risk intake actually does, what it produces, or how it differs from sibling tools like wealth_advisory_chat or wealth_portfolio_drift. The only added information is infrastructure routing, not domain purpose.

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 versus alternatives. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and JWT/tenant/company scope, but that describes mechanism, not decision criteria. An agent cannot determine whether this is the right tool for a KYC risk intake task.

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