legal_incorporation_readiness

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat those. It does add useful routing and scope context by stating the action is executed through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose any consequences of running the action, what side effects may occur, or what makes it destructive beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clear routing note and an abbreviated Args list. Every sentence contributes something, and there is no redundant filler or restating of the schema. It loses one point only because the Args section is thin, not because of wordiness or poor structure.

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?

Given the large sibling tool set, the destructive annotation, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. It does not say when to invoke incorporation readiness, what kind of message or structured inputs to provide, what side effects to expect, or how the result should be interpreted. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the missing invocation context and parameter semantics remain significant gaps.

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 bears the full burden of explaining the parameters. It adds only minimal semantics: `message` is a 'free-text objective' and `inputs` is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is slightly more than the schema titles, but it does not explain what a valid objective should contain, what structured inputs are expected, how they map to the incorporation_readiness action, or what format the JSON string should follow.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the exact resource (the legal domain agent action `incorporation_readiness`). It is not purely tautological because it identifies the action as a legal-domain agent action and clarifies how it is dispatched, which helps distinguish it from raw dispatch tools like `dispatch_domain_agent`. However, it never explains what 'incorporation readiness' actually evaluates or produces, so it stops short of full clarity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where incorporation readiness is needed, no exclusion criteria, and no reference to related tools such as `legal_incorporation_document_package`, `legal_incorporation_legal_setup_loop`, or `dispatch_domain_agent`. An agent must infer appropriateness entirely from the name.

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