legal_law_firm_growth_loop

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context about what side effects occur, what state changes, whether it launches an async process, or what safety considerations apply. The routing implementation detail does not substitute for behavioral disclosure.

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 action name, and the parameter block is brief. The routing sentence is arguably useful context, though mostly implementation detail. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool, the description is incomplete: an agent cannot tell what the law firm growth loop actually does, what it will change, what inputs it needs beyond generic free-text, or what the output means. The output schema exists but cannot compensate for the missing domain semantics.

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 clarify the parameters. It does add some meaning: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' However, it does not explain the expected structure of inputs or how message and inputs interact.

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 as an action: 'Run the legal domain agent action law_firm_growth_loop.' It identifies the legal domain but does not explain what the growth loop does, what outcome it produces, or how it differs from the many other legal_* and loop tools in the sibling list.

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 alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent, invoke_tool, or other legal operating loops. The routing note about JWT/tenant/company scope describes mechanics, not selection criteria.

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