data_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful context about JWT/tenant/company scoping and dispatcher routing, but does not disclose any side effects or postconditions beyond what annotations state.

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 and front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. The Args block is minimal and useful, though it partly duplicates parameter names from the schema.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, this is adequate but thin: it says how to invoke the action and under what scope, but gives no examples of valid messages or structured inputs, and no statement of expected behavior or side effects beyond the annotations.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. It lacks examples or allowed keys, but it gives both parameters a meaning the schema does not.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('the data domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence'), and clarifies scope via the domain-agent dispatcher. It distinguishes itself from other domain variants by naming the data domain, though it doesn't explain what plan_domain_intelligence actually computes.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent or the many sibling plan_domain_intelligence tools. The description only explains routing context, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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