legal_incorporation_document_package

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

Annotations already convey destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds useful context about dispatcher routing and JWT/tenant/company scoping, but it does not describe what side effects the action may have, what it creates or alters, or any rate/authorization caveats beyond scoping.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and avoids irrelevant filler. The routing/scoping sentence and Args block are efficiently structured, though the content is thin.

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 generic dispatcher-style tool in a huge sibling list, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain what an 'incorporation document package' is, what input JSON should contain, when to invoke it instead of related legal tools, or what outcome the agent should expect. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but selection and invocation guidance remain inadequate.

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 the burden of explaining parameters. It provides only minimal glosses—'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'—without explaining what structured fields are expected, how the objective maps to behavior, or what a valid call looks like.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the legal domain agent action incorporation_document_package.' This clearly identifies the operation's intent, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as legal_incorporation_readiness, legal_incorporation_legal_setup_loop, or dispatch_domain_agent.

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 about when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher but does not explain when a caller should choose this over legal_document_drafting, legal_incorporation_readiness, or dispatch_domain_agent, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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