deep_research_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds some context beyond annotations by mentioning that it routes through the platform dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is useful auth/scope information. However, it does not disclose what this destructive action changes or what side effects may occur when running the action.

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 well-structured: action line, scope line, then a concise Args section. It earns its place without fluff, though it could use the saved length to explain the action's purpose or effects.

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?

With many plan_domain_intelligence siblings and a destructive annotation, the description is too thin: it omits what the action produces, when the deep_research variant is appropriate, and what the message/inputs should contain beyond a vague objective. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the action's domain semantics are still unexplained.

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%, but the Args section adds basic semantics: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This compensates minimally for the schema gap, though 'structured inputs for the action' remains vague and there are no examples or expected JSON shape.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run the deep_research domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence', and the 'deep_research' prefix differentiates it from the many sibling domain plan_domain_intelligence tools. However, it never explains what plan_domain_intelligence actually accomplishes, so the agent knows what to invoke but not what outcome to expect.

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 gives routing context ('domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus deep_research_chat, deep_research_research_query, dispatch_domain_agent, or the other plan_domain_intelligence variants. There are no explicit conditions or alternatives provided.

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