legal_dsar_intake

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds useful context that calls route through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it doesn't explain what side effects or outcomes occur.

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 clearly organizes args, but the opening sentence is largely tautological, repeating the action name. It earns partial credit for being short and readable, but the first line wastes the opportunity to state real purpose.

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 legal-domain mutation action with many legal siblings, the description omits nearly all domain semantics: what a DSAR intake is, what data it captures, when to use it, and how it relates to legal_dsar_fulfill. The output schema helps with return format, but the description alone is not enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 natural-language arg descriptions carry the burden. The description does add basic meaning ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'), but it remains too vague about what structured inputs a DSAR intake action expects.

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 says only 'Run the legal domain agent action `dsar_intake`', which restates the tool name without explaining what a DSAR intake is or what the action accomplishes. It does not clearly distinguish this from related siblings like legal_dsar_fulfill or legal_matter_intake.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related legal DSAR tools. The routing/scope sentence explains how execution happens but not why or when to choose it.

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