legal_incorporation_legal_setup_loop

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope' but omits whether the action is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. It does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or potential output.

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 but not concise in a helpful way; it lacks critical information. The first line repeats the tool name, and the subsequent lines provide generic routing context without actionable details. Each sentence does not earn its place.

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, the description does not mention what the tool returns. With two optional parameters and no usage context, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It fails to explain the nature of the 'loop' or expected outcomes.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It describes message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds minimal clarity beyond the parameter names. No format, allowed values, or examples are given, leaving the agent uncertain about input requirements.

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 incorporation_legal_setup_loop' but does not clarify what this action actually accomplishes (e.g., whether it performs incorporation setup, tests configuration, or returns status). The verb 'run' is generic, and 'free-text objective' is ambiguous. The tool name suggests a loop, but the description offers no specifics.

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 alternative legal tools (e.g., legal_incorporation_readiness, legal_breach_response). There is no description of preconditions, required prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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