legal_dpa_review

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about routing under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose what side effects or outputs the dpa_review action may produce, which is a notable gap for a destructive hint tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clear Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args list partially duplicates schema information without adding much depth.

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?

The description is adequate for a thin wrapper around a domain-agent action: it names the action, explains routing/scoping, and documents both parameters at a high level. But it lacks the domain purpose of dpa_review, expected behavior, and selection guidance, so an agent cannot confidently decide when to invoke it over legal siblings.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It does add basic meaning: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' Yet it does not describe what structured inputs are expected, how message and inputs interact, or provide examples, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the legal domain agent action `dpa_review`.' It also explains that this routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which clarifies the mechanism. However, it does not explain what a dpa_review actually does or differentiate it from sibling legal tools like legal_dpia, relying mostly on the tool name for domain meaning.

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 alternatives such as legal_dpia, legal_dsar, or legal_contract_review. The description only says what it runs, not under what conditions it should be selected, and offers no exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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