legal_subpoena_route

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description only mentions that the tool 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope', implying authentication and scoping but not disclosing side effects, destructiveness, or data impact. Important behavioral traits (e.g., whether it creates or modifies records) are omitted.

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 to the point, with a clear lead sentence and a structured list of arguments. It is front-loaded and avoids extraneous information. However, the explanation of arguments could be more concise by integrating them into the narrative instead of a separate block.

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 complexity of the legal domain and the presence of many sibling legal tools, the description lacks sufficient context. It does not explain the tool's role within legal workflows, what constitutes a valid 'message' or 'inputs', or the nature of the response (despite an output schema existing). An agent would struggle to decide when and how to invoke this tool effectively.

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 input schema has two parameters with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description adds 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This provides basic semantic meaning beyond the raw schema but is still generic and lacks format details or constraints (e.g., expected structure of inputs JSON).

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 'Run the legal domain agent action `subpoena_route`' and 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher', which clarifies that the tool dispatches a subpoena-related action. However, it does not explain what 'subpoena_route' specifically accomplishes in legal terms, and it does not differentiate from other legal domain tools like legal_breach_response or legal_dsar_fulfill. The purpose is clear but 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternative legal tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Without such guidance, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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