legal_regulatory_horizon_to_policy_loop

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

Annotations already convey mutability and destructive potential, and the description adds only that routing occurs under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not disclose what side effects or state changes the action may trigger, but the existence of annotations lowers the bar.

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 front-loads the main verb and resource. The routing sentence adds some context but is somewhat generic; overall it is appropriately sized.

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 and annotations, the description is too generic to fully contextualize the action. It does not explain what the legal domain agent action does, what a 'regulatory horizon to policy loop' is, or what kind of results to expect.

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 gives minimal semantics: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is helpful given 0% schema description coverage, but it does not specify what keys, formats, or constraints the structured inputs 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run the legal domain agent action regulatory_horizon_to_policy_loop'), so it is more than a bare tautology. However, it never explains what 'regulatory_horizon_to_policy_loop' actually accomplishes beyond the action name, leaving the purpose vague.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like dispatch_domain_agent or legal_vendor_renew. Saying it 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher' is implementation detail, not usage guidance.

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