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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-annotation behavior: that a no-argument call returns all pages, which is the tool's key fallback semantics. It stops short of describing link format or count, keeping it at 4.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the return value and folds the example enumeration and the no-argument fallback into the same clause. No waste.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the argument, and the no-argument case; it also confirms the return is links. Only the count/format of returned links is left implicit, 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 the single optional contract_type parameter is already documented. The description's examples (NDA, lease, freelance, employment) overlap the schema's own example and add only marginal breadth. Baseline 3 for a schema that does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Returns links to the FixMyContract free review pages') and names the scope (per contract type, or all). No sibling tool (explain_clause_type, get_clause_frequency, list_clause_types) concerns review pages, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Clear context: call it with a contract type for that type's page, or omit the argument to get all of them. It gives the when-to-use-with-arg vs without-arg distinction but names no alternatives or exclusions, which the disjoint sibling set makes unnecessary.

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