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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value with "Never supplies assent," clarifying that a draft carries no legal effect, and mentions escaped HTML output. It still does not say what happens to the draft (returned only vs. persisted) or why idempotentHint is false.

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 and front-loaded, which is good, but the opening sentence crams four distinct capabilities together and the trailing "Selected action: draft" fragment conveys nothing actionable. Tightening to the drafting behavior plus the no-assent caveat would earn every word.

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 7-parameter tool with three free-form nested objects, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin — an agent has no basis for populating dispute, settlement, extensions, or conditions, nor any idea of the returned draft's structure.

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 7 parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at clauses and "amendment ancestry." The nested objects (dispute, settlement, extensions) and the untyped conditions array are documented in neither schema nor description, leaving four of seven inputs opaque.

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 several concrete capabilities (draft clauses, preserve amendment ancestry, compare changes, render escaped HTML), but stacking four functions into one tool muddles the core purpose and overlaps with siblings like covenant_contract__compare and covenant_contract__render. An agent cannot easily tell whether this tool drafts only, or also compares and renders.

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?

"Selected action: draft" implies a caller-side action selector that does not exist in the schema (no action parameter), so it provides no actionable routing signal. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over covenant_contract__render, __compare, or __inspect.

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