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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that Tommo Legal reads templates, signed papers and the company site and then surfaces first questions, plus the auth requirement, but it does not clearly state the side effects of launching the interview.

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 action is buried behind a definitional first sentence, and internal codes like (ONB-02.4) and (LEGAL-04.3) consume space without helping an agent call the tool. The content is dense but the run-on sentences and references reduce scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably describe what the agent gets back; it gestures at 'first questions, each with its options' but not the response shape or the effect of completing the interview. For a state-changing tool it is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the single 'path' parameter. It does explain the quick vs full options and their rough durations, which adds meaning to the enum, but it does not clarify what the paths differ in functionally, and the 'go on with one that waited' phrase muddies rather than clarifies the parameter.

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 verb (start) and resource (the contract positions interview), and pre-emptively defines what «Your contract positions» is so the agent understands the target. It distinguishes itself from the answer/read/later siblings only implicitly, via the word 'start,' without naming them.

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?

It gives real decision support for the path choice (quick ≈ 2 minutes vs full ≈ 15) and states the role requirement (Member, Admin or Owner). However, it never says when to use this tool versus answer_the_contract_positions or do_the_contract_positions_later, and 'or go on with one that waited' is vague rather than an explicit alternative.

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