legal_horizon_digest

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds that this is a dispatcher-routed call scoped to JWT, tenant, and company, which gives some useful execution/auth context. However, it does not disclose what side effects the action may have, and given `destructiveHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true`, more transparency about consequences would be expected.

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 short and has a structured Args section, but the space is not used efficiently. The first sentence mostly restates the tool name, and the routing detail takes up room that could have been used to explain what the action actually does.

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 an opaque action name in the legal domain, the description is incomplete: it never states what `horizon_digest` accomplishes, when it should be invoked, or what kind of objective belongs in `message`. The output schema may cover return shape, but the agent still lacks enough context to select and invoke this tool confidently.

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 missing parameter meaning. It does define `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string, which adds value beyond the bare schema. But it omits the expected shape of the JSON, examples, and how the parameters interact.

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 only says it runs a legal-domain agent action named `horizon_digest` and routes through a dispatcher, without explaining what the action does or produces. This is essentially a restatement of the name plus an implementation detail, and it does not distinguish `digest` from related siblings like `legal_horizon_scan` or `legal_horizon_subscribe`.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `legal_horizon_scan`, `legal_horizon_subscribe`, or `dispatch_domain_agent`. The mention of JWT/tenant/company scope is an execution detail, not a usage condition or exclusion.

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