legal_dpia

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds routing context ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'), which is useful, but it does not disclose what side effects the dpia action may have or what happens on execution. It adds a little value beyond annotations but not much.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief routing context sentence, and a clear Args section. Every sentence contributes something. It could be improved by an example or more context, but as a concise definition it is efficient.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description is too thin for reliable selection and invocation. It does not explain what dpia means, what the free-text objective should contain, what structured inputs are expected, or how this differs from the many legal domain sibling tools. An agent is left to guess the action's intent and appropriate payload.

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 carry parameter meaning. It provides a one-line explanation for each parameter: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is minimally helpful but lacks detail on expected input shape, valid values, or how the two parameters relate. It partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run the legal domain agent action `dpia`.' This mechanically identifies what the tool does and enough to separate it from siblings with different action names. However, it never explains what a DPIA is or what the action accomplishes, leaving the actual purpose semantically vague.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related legal actions like legal_dpa_review, legal_contract_review, or legal_compliance_monitoring. It only describes routing and arguments. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or mention of alternatives.

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