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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description says nothing about what is persisted or destroyed, that sources are sent to an external inference provider, or that payment may be required — all of which the schema hints at but never explains behaviorally. The 'find' framing actively understates the destructive/open-world profile without resolving it.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming outcome and deliverable early. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavior and parameters go unexplained.

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?

A complex, nested-schema, open-world, destructive-flagged tool with no output schema and no explanation of what a report contains, how scope controls output depth, or how sourceRunIds/payment paths work. Too much is left to the schema for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is only 67% across 6 parameters plus a nested inputs object, and the description adds no meaning to scope, playbook, riskAppetite, lessons, sourceRunIds, or the consentExternalProcessing gate. Critically, the mandatory external-processing authorization and idempotencyKey conventions are left entirely to schema reading.

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 and resource: clause-level risk scoring against a buying playbook, plus the produced artifact (proposed redlines). An agent can roughly tell it apart from the summariser/ESG/maverick siblings, though it never explicitly names or excludes 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?

Gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions beyond the passing phrase 'for legal review'. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from xcontracts-summariser, xnegotiate-coach, or xmaverick-detector when reviewing the same contract.

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