hr_plan_domain_intelligence

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

The annotations already convey that this is not read-only, is open-world, is not idempotent, and is potentially destructive. The description adds relevant routing and authorization context (JWT, tenant, company scope), which is useful, but it does not elaborate on side effects, external calls, or failure behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-organized, with the action statement, routing/scope context, and parameter definitions each earning their place. The first sentence somewhat restates the tool name, but overall there is no fluff or unnecessary padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required, and the parameter descriptions are present. However, the description does not clarify what 'plan_domain_intelligence' is supposed to accomplish, provide examples, or explain implications of the open-world/destructive hints, leaving an agent without enough context to use the tool confidently.

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 burden of explaining parameters. It defines `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string, which adds real meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it leaves the expected JSON structure and message format unspecified.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('hr domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`'), and it mentions the dispatcher routing mechanism. However, it never explains what 'plan_domain_intelligence' actually does, what it plans, or what output the agent should expect, so the purpose remains vague beyond re-stating the action name.

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 versus the many sibling tools such as hr_lookup, hr_chat, or dispatch_domain_agent. The description says it routes through a dispatcher, but that is a mechanism detail, not a selection criterion or an indication of when this action is appropriate.

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