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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavior—escaped HTML output and no assent—but leaves side effects, authorization needs, and the meaning of the multi-action phrasing unclarified. It does not clearly contradict the annotations.

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 brief, but the structure buries the operative action at the end after listing sibling-like capabilities. 'Selected action: render' should lead rather than trail.

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 a nested required body parameter, no output schema, and annotations only covering safety, the description omits the input contract entirely. It implies an escaped HTML output but does not sufficiently explain output shape or usage.

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?

There is one required object parameter, 'body,' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what belongs in body or how clauses, amendments, or changes map to it. The schema only constrains it as an object with maxProperties 20000.

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 a concrete output ('escaped HTML draft') and says 'Selected action: render,' but the opening clause also claims drafting, ancestry preservation, and comparison—tasks owned by sibling tools such as covenant_contract__draft and covenant_contract__compare. That makes the tool's actual scope unclear despite the render-specific phrase.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no explicit routing away from the sibling draft/compare tools despite listing those capabilities. The only constraint is 'Never supplies assent,' which is not selection guidance.

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