legal_risk_contract_protection_loop

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

Annotations already signal destructive, non-idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful scoping context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not describe side effects, what may change, or how the loop behaves.

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: the first sentence states the operation and the Args list is easy to scan. The routing/scoping sentence adds relevant context without padding.

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 domain-agent loop action with 0% schema description coverage and no functional detail, this is too thin. It does not explain what the loop does, what structured inputs are valid, what triggers it, or what to expect from execution. The output schema may cover return shape, but the description alone is not self-contained enough for correct invocation.

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 Args section carries the burden. It correctly identifies message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string, which is more than the schema provides. However, it gives no expected keys, allowed values, or examples, leaving the structured-input contract vague.

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 first sentence names a concrete resource ('risk_contract_protection_loop') and the legal domain, but it never explains what the action actually does or what outcome it produces. It is close to a restatement of the tool name and does little to distinguish this from the many other legal domain loop actions.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No use cases, prerequisites, exclusions, or selection conditions are mentioned; the only signal is the action name itself.

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