legal_dpa_review

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions routing scope. No side effects, authorization needs, or behavioral traits are disclosed. The tool's effect (read, write, mutation) is entirely unclear.

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 concise with three sentences plus arg descriptions. No unnecessary information, but the brevity sacrifices clarity about the tool's core function.

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 tool has output schema (unseen) and two optional parameters, the description lacks essential context: what dpa_review does, what it returns, or any prerequisites. It feels like a stub.

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 coverage is 0% so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, which adds basic meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify expected structure or constraints for either parameter.

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 it runs the 'dpa_review' action but does not explain what that action does. It repeats the tool name without defining the purpose or distinguishing it from siblings like legal_contract_review or legal_dpia. The routing details are secondary.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative legal tools. No context or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to guess based on the name.

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