legal_compliance_scan_loop

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safe/mutating profile is visible. The description adds some useful context by stating execution happens through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose what side effects or destructive outcomes the loop may produce.

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 definition is short and organized with an Args section, but the opening sentence is essentially a restatement of the tool name rather than an informative summary. It is not bloated, yet it also does not front-load a genuinely useful purpose statement.

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 potentially destructive loop action with zero schema documentation and a huge set of sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It omits the intended scenario, the semantics of the loop, and sufficient differentiation from other legal and GRC compliance tools; the output schema cannot compensate for the missing selection and side-effect guidance.

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 schema has no property descriptions, so the description's 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string' are the only semantic guidance available. This is enough to convey basic intent, but it does not explain what kind of structured inputs are expected, what keys are valid, or how inputs interact with the message.

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 opens with 'Run the legal domain agent action compliance_scan_loop', which largely restates the tool name and only adds the generic fact that it is a legal-domain action. It does not explain what a compliance scan loop actually does, what compliance areas it covers, or how it differs from siblings like legal_compliance_monitoring or grc_compliance_audit.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The routing/scope sentence and the arg list provide context but no conditions, exclusions, or comparison to other compliance-related tools.

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