legal_vendor_onboarding_legal_loop

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It discloses authentication context but omits critical behavioral traits such as whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur. The safety profile is largely absent.

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 four sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides routing context, and the remaining two succinctly document parameters. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what happens when the action runs (e.g., returns a status, creates a record, or triggers a workflow). For a tool that 'runs' an action, the outcome is unclear. The description covers basic auth context but lacks completeness about effects and return behavior.

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 adds meaning beyond the input schema: 'message' is described as a 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Given the schema has 0% description coverage, this clarifies parameter roles and optionality effectively.

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 the tool runs a specific legal domain agent action 'vendor_onboarding_legal_loop'. It specifies the action by name and mentions routing through a dispatcher. However, it does not differentiate this loop from sibling tools like 'legal_vendor_onboard' or 'legal_partnership_onboarding_loop', which may have overlapping purposes.

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 explicit exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for selecting it among sibling tools.

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