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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints), the description adds real behavioral context: a ~45s latency warning, an explicit disclaimer that it is information not legal advice, and disclosure that the full report sits behind a $14.99 upsell link. It does not contradict the non-readOnly annotation. Missing detail on rate limits or failure behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the parameter cue, then return shape and caveats. The parenthetical inventory of paid-report features is somewhat padded, but it carries the paywall information an agent needs to set expectations.

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 steps in and names the return contents: every flagged clause with severity, the risk, the state rule/citation, and an unlock link. For a single-shot scan tool this is close to complete, lacking only edge-case handling such as invalid state codes or too-short text.

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% (both state and lease_text are fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the full lease text must be passed but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (scan) and resource (US residential lease) with a defined scope: risky, unusual or unenforceable clauses under state tenant law. This separates it cleanly from the tenant_law sibling, which answers law questions rather than scanning a document.

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 instruction to 'pass the full lease text' gives a usage cue, and the state/lease framing implies the use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over tenant_law or any exclusion, so an agent must infer the routing.

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