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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the type of information returned (requirements, pitfalls, etc.), which implies a read-only lookup. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, auth needs, or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first defines the output, the second specifies how to call it with slug examples. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple lookup tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content and usage adequately. It does not mention limitations or pagination, but the tool's complexity is low, so it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds context by showing example values for contract_slug and jurisdiction_slug, but does not add new constraints or format details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns statute-cited legal requirements, key differences, common pitfalls, terminology, and FAQs for a contract type in a specific jurisdiction. It provides concrete examples of slugs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_contract or check_non_compete_enforceability.

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 description explicitly instructs to use contract slug and jurisdiction slug with examples. It implies when to use (for legal requirements), but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Clear context but no exclusions.

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