wealth_advisory_wealth_retirement_withdrawal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only or performs mutations, side effects, rate limits, or error behaviors. For a tool likely performing financial calculations or data operations, this is insufficient.

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 and includes a structured Args section, which aids readability. However, the opening sentence is nearly a tautology of the tool's name, and the additional sentence about routing adds little value. It is concise but at the expense of essential information.

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?

Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not mention what the tool returns or how to interpret results. Given the tool's likely complexity (retirement withdrawal planning), the agent needs to know the output type. Additionally, parameter semantics are underdeveloped, leaving gaps in usability.

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 add meaning. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which provides minimal clarity. It does not specify acceptable formats, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate these fields effectively.

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 states 'Run the wealth_advisory domain agent action wealth_retirement_withdrawal' but does not explain what the action does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, making it unclear whether this tool calculates withdrawals, generates strategies, or performs a simulation. Sibling tools like wealth_advisory_wealth_monte_carlo_retirement suggest related functionality, but no differentiation is provided.

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 description does not specify context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, nor does it exclude cases where sibling tools like wealth_advisory_wealth_tax_loss_harvest or wealth_advisory_wealth_monte_carlo_retirement should be preferred.

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