legal_horizon_subscribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not state whether the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. Behavioral traits are largely opaque.

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 with the action name, with a clear args list. However, it is too concise to convey essential information, sacrificing content for brevity.

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 having an output schema and simple parameters, the description fails to explain what the action accomplishes. In a large set of sibling tools, this incompleteness hinders correct tool selection and usage.

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. It provides basic parameter meanings ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string'), adding some value over the raw schema, but lacks format details or examples.

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 'Run the legal domain agent action horizon_subscribe' but does not explain what horizon_subscribe actually does. It mentions routing details but lacks a clear verb-resource purpose, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools like legal_horizon_digest or legal_horizon_scan.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, exclusions, or contextual cues to help an agent decide if horizon_subscribe is appropriate.

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