legal_subpoena_route

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

The description mentions that it 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher', which discloses a minimal internal step. However, the annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, implying potential side effects, yet the description gives no indication of any destructive behavior or consequences. This lack of transparency about the action's effects is a significant omission.

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 extremely concise, with exactly two sentences and no redundant or verbose wording. It is well-structured and easy to read, earning a high score for conciseness and organization.

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's complexity (two parameters, destructive hint, potential side effects), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any information about expected output, error conditions, side effects, or how to interpret the results. The minimal description leaves the agent without essential context for safe and correct usage.

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 two parameters 'message' and 'inputs' are listed without any description or schema documentation. The description adds no meaning about what these parameters should contain or how they affect the action. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides none of the needed semantic clarity.

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 a clear verb 'Run' and names the specific resource 'legal_subpoena_route', but it does not explain what the action actually does beyond 'routing through the dispatcher'. It also does not distinguish itself from the many other similar domain-agent action tools in the sibling list, such as 'legal_vendor_renew'. The purpose is somewhat clear but generic.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions for usage, and no exclusions. It simply states the mechanism of routing without any context for selection.

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