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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful output context: it returns per-limit reasoning, contract-ready exhibit text, and a requirements object consumable by check_certificate, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return contract. It is information-rich rather than bloated, though the long enumerated line of coverages is heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the three outputs. For a complex, nested, 7-parameter tool it could go further on how overrides and the boolean flags shape results, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the scaling relationship between trade risk and contract size that governs the outputs, which the schema documents only as raw enums. It still leaves overrides, hasEmployees, usesVehicles and cancellationNoticeDays to the schema, so it is a modest gain.

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?

States a specific verb (recommends/builds) and resource (contract insurance requirements) with the exact lines covered (GL, auto, umbrella, WC, AI, waiver of subrogation, primary/non-contributory). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling check_certificate by naming that tool as the consumer of its output.

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?

Clearly scopes the two usage contexts (a GC hiring a subcontractor, or a PM/HOA hiring a vendor) and implies its role in a workflow by noting check_certificate accepts the output. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over list_requirement_presets, but the context framing is clear.

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