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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description contributes nothing about what is actually returned (template text? a list of names?) or any other behavioral trait, adding no value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The two-word phrase earns little and front-loads no actionable information.

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?

Even for a simple one-enum-parameter tool, the description omits what the tool produces and how it differs from the numerous draft-oriented siblings. With no output schema, the description should at least indicate the return artifact, which it does not.

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 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. The single "type" enum is self-evident, but the description never explains what selecting a type does or what the resulting artifact looks like.

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 is a bare noun phrase, "Contract templates", that essentially restates the tool name/title without a verb. It identifies the resource domain but leaves ambiguous whether the tool lists, retrieves, or generates templates, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings like business_nda_draft or business_bill_of_sale_draft.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling draft tools (business_nda_draft, business_offer_letter_draft, etc.). The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the name and enum values.

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