execute_finance_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether execution is read-only or mutating, what side effects may occur, or how results are returned. The only non-obvious context is the warning about hallucination, which is more usage guidance than behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a highly relevant usage directive. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool's simplicity as a dynamic dispatcher, the description adequately covers the key context: how to invoke it and the prerequisite discovery steps. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. However, it does not address error handling or invalid inputs, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides minimal added meaning. It implicitly acknowledges tool_name and params ('by name with the given parameters') but does not elaborate on their formats, constraints, or the expected structure of the params object. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Execute a specific finance tool by name with the given parameters.' This distinguishes the tool from its siblings (list_finance_categories, search_finance_tools, get_tool_schema) by identifying it as the executor, not a discovery or schema tool.

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?

The description provides explicit directive: 'Always call search_finance_tools or get_tool_schema first to confirm the correct tool name and parameter shape.' This clearly indicates when and how to use the tool (only after confirmation) and explains the rationale for avoiding parameter hallucination, thereby differentiating it from the discovery tools.

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