finance_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those fields: it requires no model API call and no external finance account, meaning no auth or network dependency. It stops short of describing what the readiness report contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operational constraint front-loaded after the action; no filler. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it leaves, but as conciseness it is efficient.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description should say what a result looks like (pass/fail report, which checks are run). It states the input-side guarantees but leaves the output entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot anticipate what it receives.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. Nothing in the schema needs compensating for, and additionalProperties=false confirms the empty contract matches the description's implication of a self-contained local check.

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 verb+resource is 'check local readiness', which names the act but leaves the object of the check ambiguous (dependencies? config? credentials?). It is distinguishable from siblings like finance_run and finance_validate in the sense that it is a diagnostic, but the description never states that explicitly.

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 model API or external finance account is needed' implies the condition under which this tool is usable (offline/unconfigured environments), which is real usage signal. However, it never names an alternative or states when to prefer this over finance_validate or finance_verify, so guidance is only implied.

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