legal_horizon_subscribe

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

Annotations already provide `destructiveHint=true`, `openWorldHint=true`, and `idempotentHint=false`, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context that the action routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher and runs under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose the concrete side effects of the subscription, such as what gets created or changed.

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 front-loaded, stating the action first and then giving routing context before the Args block. It avoids unnecessary boilerplate, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive domain guidance, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 tool whose actual domain behavior is essentially unknown, this definition leaves major gaps: no when-to-use guidance, no explanation of what `horizon_subscribe` accomplishes, and no input-shape details beyond 'JSON string'. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but an agent still cannot reliably distinguish this from sibling legal-horizon tools or know what to put in `inputs`.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string, which is helpful at a basic level. But it does not describe what keys or values the `inputs` JSON should contain, nor how the message maps to the action, so the compensation is only partial.

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 that the tool runs a specific legal domain agent action, `horizon_subscribe`, which gives a clear verb and resource. However, it never explains what subscribing to the legal horizon actually does, leaving the core purpose vague. It also does not distinguish this from near-named siblings such as `legal_horizon_scan` or `legal_horizon_digest`.

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. The description says it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but that is mechanism, not usage criteria. It does not mention when a user should choose `legal_horizon_subscribe` over `legal_horizon_scan`, `legal_horizon_digest`, or `dispatch_domain_agent`.

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