legal_partnership_onboarding_loop

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

The description mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is a behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, error handling, or expected response behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence introduces the action, the second adds routing context, and the third lists parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter list could be more structured.

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 tool is a loop action with an output schema, the description lacks details on loop behavior, completion criteria, and return values. It does not fully contextualize the tool's purpose within the legal domain, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'message' as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies intent and usage for both parameters, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool runs the 'legal domain agent action partnership_onboarding_loop', identifying a specific verb and resource. It also explains routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher. However, it does not describe the outcome or loop behavior, which could be clearer.

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 alternatives like legal_contract_review or legal_matter_intake. The description lacks context for typical use cases or exclusions.

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