document_intelligence_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds routing and auth-scope context (JWT, tenant, company, dispatcher), which is useful, but it does not disclose what side effects or state changes the action may cause. With annotations covering part of the safety profile, a middle score is appropriate.

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 the Args list is clear, but the opening sentence is a near-tautology of the tool name. The routing sentence adds some context but contributes little operational value, making the description compact yet not fully informative.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain what plan_domain_intelligence is for, what message content should be supplied, or what the action will change, especially concerning the destructiveHint=true annotation. In a large sibling list of similar domain-planning tools, this under-specification makes correct selection and invocation difficult.

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 carries the full parameter-documentation burden. It only says message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds minimal meaning beyond the property names. No example, expected JSON shape, or guidance on how to structure inputs is provided.

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 only states 'Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`', which largely restates the tool name. It does not explain what planning domain intelligence does or what outcome it produces, and the routing/scope sentence describes mechanics rather than purpose. An agent cannot distinguish this from the many sibling `*_plan_domain_intelligence` tools.

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 use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from alternatives such as `document_intelligence_chat`, `dispatch_domain_agent`, or other `plan_domain_intelligence` tools. The domain prefix is the only implicit selection signal.

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