legal_tax_obligation_scan

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is implementation detail. It does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, what auth is required beyond JWT, rate limits, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely performs a scan, more behavioral context is expected.

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 (three sentences plus an Args section). The first sentence is direct, but the second sentence about routing is less essential and could be omitted. The Args section is brief but lacks depth. Overall, it is somewhat concise but could be better structured to front-load the purpose.

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 has two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the action returns, how the input parameters interact, or provide examples. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description fails to give the agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'inputs' is an optional JSON string and explains 'message' as free-text objective, which adds some meaning. However, it does not specify what constitutes a valid objective, how to structure the JSON inputs, or the relationship between the two parameters. The description only minimally enhances the schema.

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 tax_obligation_scan' which is essentially a restatement of the name. It does not specify what the action actually does (e.g., scan for tax obligations from legal documents) nor distinguish it from siblings like legal_tax_compliance_report or grc_tax_obligation_scan. The verb 'Run' is vague, and the resource 'agent action' is not defined.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like legal_tax_compliance_report and grc_tax_obligation_scan that likely serve similar purposes, but the description gives no context for selection. No when/when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.

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