legal_vendor_onboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and scoping, but does not disclose the action's side effects, safety, or outcome. For a tool that delegates to an action, more behavioral context is needed to inform the agent.

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 concise with four sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds routing context, and lists parameters with brief explanations. No extraneous information.

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 that the tool delegates to a domain agent action and has an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain the action's behavior, return values, or error conditions. The agent is left to infer what vendor_onboard does, which is insufficient for a delegated action.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string. This is helpful but lacks format details or examples for the JSON string.

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 clearly states that the tool runs the legal domain agent action `vendor_onboard`, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it is a domain agent action dispatcher, unlike other legal tools that may be direct integrations. However, it could be more explicit about what the vendor_onboard action does.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `legal_vendor_onboarding_legal_loop` or `legal_vendor_renew`. The description mentions that it routes under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which gives some context but no exclusionary or preferential usage conditions.

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