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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral detail: missing fields become placeholders, output is plain text, no auth is required, and the endpoint is rate limited. These are genuine value-adds an agent can act on.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then terse, high-density sentences about placeholders, legal status, auth, and rate limiting. No sentence wanders, though the final fragments are cryptic rather than explanatory.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the draft/legal, placeholder, auth, and rate-limit notes cover operational concerns. But for an 11-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves an agent without guidance on the majority of 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 full burden, yet it only says missing text fields use placeholders. It never explains the three enum parameters (paymentTerms, sessionFormat, cancellationPolicy), the integer sessionLength bounds, or what fee/dates mean, so the parameter semantics gap is largely unfilled.

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 (Generate) and resource (website's coaching agreement) plus the output format (plain text). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like retainer_agreement and sow_generate, though it does not explicitly call out the alternative it complements.

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?

The line 'Draft only; legal review may be needed' gives a caveat about intended use, which is useful context. However, it never names when to pick this over the sibling retainer_agreement or other agreement generators, leaving the choice to inference.

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