legal_compliance_scan_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool routes through a dispatcher, but it does not specify whether the action is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any authentication requirements beyond the implied JWT scope.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses two clear paragraphs and wastes no words. The parameter descriptions are inline and helpful.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, return values are not required. However, the description fails to explain what the compliance scan loop does, its typical use cases, or its relationship to the legal domain. Given the tool's complexity (domain agent action), the description is incomplete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the bare parameter names.

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 'Run the legal domain agent action compliance_scan_loop.' It is specific about the verb and resource but does not explain what the compliance scan loop actually does, leaving its purpose ambiguous. It fails to distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like legal_compliance_monitoring.

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 mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context.

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