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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description presents the operation as a benign summarisation and says nothing about side effects, external processing, consent requirements or idempotency. The description does not directly contradict the annotations, but it omits the behavioral context an agent needs for a potentially destructive, externally processing job.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized as a purpose statement, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and behavioral context.

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?

The tool has six parameters, a nested input object, no output schema, and destructive/open-world annotations. A one-sentence description is not complete enough to explain when to use it, what happens to the contract data, or how the consent and idempotency requirements work.

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 67% and the schema already documents the main input fields, but the description adds no meaning about inputs, sourceFields, sourceRunIds, consentExternalProcessing or paymentInvoiceId. For a nested six-parameter tool, the description does not compensate for the remaining schema gaps.

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 and resource: turning a supplier contract into a summary covering obligations, service levels, liability and exit terms. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not differentiate itself from related siblings such as xclause-risk-scoring or contracts.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer that it applies when summarising a supplier contract, but nothing tells it when to choose this instead of xclause-risk-scoring, xnegotiate-coach or other contract-adjacent tools.

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