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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond them: placeholder substitution for missing fields, draft-only status requiring legal review, no auth, and rate limiting.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information (output format, placeholder behavior, legal caveat, access, limits), with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and defaults make all 11 params optional. Still, with 0% schema coverage the description says nothing about what any parameter means, which is a real gap for a tool with this many inputs.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the burden, yet it explains no parameter meaning. Only the note that 'missing text fields use placeholders' hints at how empty defaults behave, which partially compensates but leaves fee, coachName, dates, and enums unexplained.

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 ('Generate the website's coaching agreement') plus the output format ('as plain text'). It is distinguishable from retainer_agreement and sow_generate by resource name alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a legal caveat ('Draft only; legal review may be needed') and access facts ('Free, no authentication required. Rate limited'), but never says when to choose this tool over retainer_agreement, sow_generate, or other agreement siblings, nor any prerequisite for use.

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