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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' largely repeats structured data. The description does add useful context beyond annotations: the fallback happens automatically with no setup required, and the standard template carries a legal disclaimer note that should be surfaced once. That is genuine added value, though modest.

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?

It is short, but the single run-on sentence with nested parentheticals ('its own if it saved some, otherwise our standard agreement (used automatically, nothing to set up)') forces re-parsing. The most important fact – what is returned – is not front-loaded and is buried mid-sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: the wording in use, the agency's address and governing state, and the saved offer. The only real gap is that it does not say what happens when no offer has been saved.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and has an empty schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the parameter surface.

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 names the resource precisely: the agreement wording currently in effect, whether the agency's own or the standard fallback, plus agency details and the saved offer. It effectively distinguishes itself from agreement_template_save through the closing 'Changes nothing.' The phrasing is convoluted but the substance is clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to read the template before drafting or sending, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The 'mention its note once' instruction is output-handling guidance rather than selection guidance.

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