procurement_plan_domain_intelligence

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 discloses that the tool routes through the domain-agent dispatcher and uses JWT/tenant/company scope, but it does not describe the action's side effects, return format, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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 (two sentences plus parameter list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it lacks structural elements like sections for behavioral or return value details.

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 (domain agent action) and the existence of an output schema, the description should explain what 'plan_domain_intelligence' does and what the agent can expect as output. It does not provide this context, leaving the agent reliant on the tool name alone. Among many similar sibling tools, this is insufficient for confident selection.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by labeling 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This provides basic semantics beyond the schema's defaults and types, though it lacks details on formats or constraints.

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 this tool runs the 'plan_domain_intelligence' action for the procurement domain, distinguishing it from similar tools for other domains (e.g., commerce, crm). The verb 'Run' and the specific action name provide clarity, though the description does not elaborate on what the action entails.

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 mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other procurement tools like chat or spend analysis, or other domain intelligence tools). No exclusions or preferred contexts are given.

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