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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations do not carry: missing text fields fall back to placeholders, output is a draft requiring legal review, and there are no auth requirements but rate limiting applies.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then placeholder behavior, legal caveat, and access/rate-limit facts. Every sentence earns its place.

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 not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies placeholder behavior, legal-review caveat, auth, and rate-limit info, which is close to complete; only the parameter semantics gap keeps it from a 5.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden, but it only vaguely gestures at fields via "Missing text fields use placeholders." None of the enums (paymentDue, contractTerm, noticePeriod) or the specific fields like monthlyFee and includedScope are explained, so an agent gets little semantic guidance beyond the schema's own names and defaults.

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), a specific resource (the website's monthly retainer agreement), and the output format (plain text). It is clearly distinguishable from the other agreement/pricing siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to contrast with.

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 a caveat ("Draft only; legal review may be needed") but no statement of when to choose this over siblings like coaching_agreement or sow_generate, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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