legal_incorporation_legal_setup_loop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail that this is a dispatcher-routed action scoped to JWT, tenant, and company, but it does not disclose what the loop will do, what side effects may occur, or how open-ended the agentic behavior is beyond the annotation hints.

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 well-structured: a one-line invocation statement, a short routing/scope sentence, and a clean Args block. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan, though it spends some words on generic dispatcher mechanics rather than substantive tool behavior.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the tool is a destructive, open-world agentic loop with two free-form parameters and no required fields, so the description needs to explain what the loop is for, what inputs drive it, and what the agent should provide. It does none of that, leaving the agent with only the name and generic parameter descriptions.

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 carries the burden, and it does provide basic semantics for both parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, it does not explain what structured inputs should contain, what message format is expected, or how the two parameters interact, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details.

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 simply restates the tool name ('Run the legal domain agent action `incorporation_legal_setup_loop`') and explains the routing mechanism, but never says what the incorporation legal setup loop actually does, what outcome it produces, or what legal domain work it performs. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like legal_incorporation_readiness, legal_incorporation_document_package, or legal_enterprise_customer_onboarding_loop.

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 any alternative, what scenarios it is appropriate for, or what prerequisites or constraints apply. The description only states that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is context about execution, not usage guidance.

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