wealth_advisory_wealth_retirement_withdrawal

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds only routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) and does not disclose what effects the action has, what data may be changed, or what consequences a retirement withdrawal might incur.

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 short, front-loaded, and has a clear Args section. Each sentence contributes some operational context, though the brevity comes at the cost of functional clarity.

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 generic domain-agent dispatch tool with vague parameters and a large sibling list, the description is incomplete: it lacks the domain purpose, when-to-use guidance, input semantics, and behavioral effects. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description still does not let an agent correctly select and invoke the action.

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 carry the burden of parameter meaning. It clarifies that message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string, but 'structured inputs for the action' is circular and provides no concrete field-level guidance for constructing usable inputs.

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 says 'Run the wealth_advisory domain agent action `wealth_retirement_withdrawal`,' which essentially restates the tool name as an action without explaining what the action does. It does not say whether the tool calculates, plans, executes, or analyzes a retirement withdrawal, and it does not distinguish it from nearby wealth_advisory siblings like wealth_advisory_wealth_monte_carlo_retirement.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The routing detail about JWT, tenant, and company scope describes infrastructure, not selection criteria, so an agent cannot determine when to invoke this over wealth_advisory_chat or other wealth_advisory_* actions.

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