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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by specifying exactly what gets replaced: the saved extraction snapshot and status. It adds non-obvious operational context about credits, trial caps, and that proposals require human approval in Contracko. It stops short of saying whether the prior snapshot is retained or recoverable.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and effect, with no filler. Some phrasing ("Contracko", "CLM trial caps") is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasteful.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the cost model, the quota constraint, and the downstream approval flow. It omits whether a reprocess run identifier is produced (relevant given the clm_get_contract_reprocess_run sibling), which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so id, fileVersionId, idempotencyKey, readMode, and customFieldKeys are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Re-read a document via external AI; replace saved extraction snapshot/status" gives a specific verb, resource, and resulting effect. The replacement clause implicitly distinguishes it from the read-only clm_read_contract_document, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied by "re-read" and cost context ("No Parser credits", trial caps), and the description states what the tool does not do (field proposals are not applied). However, it never explicitly says when to pick this over clm_read_contract_document or clm_get_contract_reprocess_run.

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