legal_vendor_onboarding_legal_loop

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about auth/scope routing via the domain-agent dispatcher, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what side effects the legal loop may trigger, what changes it makes, or what the destructive behavior actually consists of. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and has a clear Args breakdown. Every sentence earns its place without filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 enormous sibling set and the loose, generic parameters, the description does not give enough context for reliable selection and use. It lacks side-effect detail, intended trigger scenarios, and any explanation of what the legal vendor onboarding loop actually accomplishes. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the tool is still under-specified.

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?

Input schema properties have no descriptions, so the Args block carries the burden. It provides basic meanings: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is adequate but shallow — it does not explain what structured inputs should contain, allowed formats, or examples.

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 specific action: 'Run the legal domain agent action `vendor_onboarding_legal_loop`'. This is a clear verb-plus-resource statement. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like legal_vendor_onboard, legal_vendor_screen, commerce_vendor_onboarding, or procurement_vendor_onboarding.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains that it routes through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is an execution detail rather than a selection criterion. No exclusions or alternative-tool references are present.

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