legal_ip_deadline_check

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

The description adds useful execution context: it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher and operates under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, the annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description does not disclose what state may change or what side effects an IP deadline check could trigger. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 uses an Args block, which is easy to scan. However, the first sentence largely restates the tool name and adds no new information, and the remaining routing note is implementation detail rather than functional clarification.

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 tool with a specialized legal function, the description lacks the core semantic information an agent needs to select and use it correctly. It does not say what an IP deadline check is, when to run it, what inputs are meaningful, or what outcomes it produces. The output schema may help with return values, but the action's purpose and trigger conditions remain unexplained.

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?

The description provides one-line definitions for both parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. Given the schema itself has 0% description coverage, this is meaningful but still vague—there is no indication of what structured inputs are expected, what keys are valid, or what the free-text objective should contain for a legal IP deadline check.

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 begins by repeating the tool name as the action ('Run the legal domain agent action ip_deadline_check') without explaining what an IP deadline check actually does or what legal outcome it produces. The routing context explains how it executes, not what purpose it serves, so an agent cannot distinguish it from other legal IP tools like legal_ip_docket_sync based on the description alone.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling legal tools. The only stated context is routing mechanics ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'), which does not help an agent decide whether this is the right action for a user request.

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