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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses billing mechanics ('$3 USDC per call (x402)'), a refund condition ('If too few sources answer you are not charged'), and the async timing rule ('with async=true the core source is checked before the job is queued and charged'). It also states the 'Not legal advice' caveat and the 7-day PDF output, which an agent cannot learn from the annotations or schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are information-dense with no filler. The long comma-delimited enumeration of risk categories is heavier than needed, but each listed item conveys real scope rather than padding.

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 9 parameters, no output schema and thin annotations, the description carries the necessary load: cost, refund condition, async behavior, input size limit, output artifact, and legal disclaimer. It is still incomplete on the focus and jurisdiction parameters and does not explicitly connect webhook_url to the async flow.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the description complements it by grouping the accepted input routes (PDF / Word / web page / text) and explaining the async timing semantics. It adds nothing for the two undocumented parameters (focus, jurisdiction) and only loosely implies role via 'the side you are on'.

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+resource (contract review) and enumerates the output in detail (clause risk, obligations, auto-renewal, liability, IP, missing clauses, negotiation points, PDF). It is unmistakably distinct in intent, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling report_contract_audit, leaving the agent to guess which of the two contract tools to pick.

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?

Input formats ('PDF, Word, web page or text up to about 28,000 tokens') and the cost/no-charge conditions imply when the tool is usable and safe to fire. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to report_contract_audit or contract_inspect, so the usage boundary is only implied.

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