legal_sales_agreement_packet

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

The description adds scoping context (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose any side effects, data mutations, or destructive potential beyond what the annotations already indicate (destructiveHint: true). The additional routing detail is minimal.

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 very short (two sentences) and not verbose, which is good. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance—there is barely any information beyond a name reference and a routing note, so the conciseness does not effectively serve the agent.

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?

The description omits details about return values, error conditions, expected inputs, or any domain-specific behavior. Even though an output schema may exist (per context signals), the description itself does not cover essential runtime context, making it incomplete for many use cases.

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 generic labels for the two parameters: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' While this is more than the empty schema, it lacks specific guidance on what the objective or inputs should contain, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states it runs a legal domain agent action named 'sales_agreement_packet' but does not explain what that action actually does. This is nearly tautological and offers little differentiation from dozens of similar 'run' 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The generic routing mention provides no decision criteria, and the description fails to clarify scenarios or edge cases where this tool is appropriate.

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