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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: URLs are short-lived, one contract is created per document, credit consumption, trial caps, and accepted formats with a 50 MiB ceiling. It omits what happens after the call (whether processing is asynchronous and where the resulting import is surfaced), which is the main behavioral gap.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core action before the sibling routing and constraints. The telegraphic fragments ('No Parser credits. Subscribe to lift trial caps.') are efficient but slightly clipped, costing a little clarity for the economics 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?

For a mutating, open-world import with no output schema, the description covers inputs, limits, credits, and the sibling alternative. It is missing any pointer to clm_get_import_status for tracking the resulting import, which is the one thing an agent would need after invoking it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds constraints the schema does not express: the allowed document types (PDF, Word .docx, text, RTF) and the per-file size limit, which govern what may be supplied in the files array. The folderId and allowDuplicate semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Import chat attachments from short-lived URLs') and immediately scopes it ('One contract per document'), then names the sibling it is not ('To attach related documents, use Add contract documents'). An agent can distinguish it from clm_add_contract_documents and clm_import_contracts without opening any schema.

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 an explicit routing rule to the alternative tool for related documents, plus eligibility context (no Parser credits, trial caps lifted by subscription). It does not state when this tool should NOT be used, nor any prerequisite about obtaining the short-lived URLs first, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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