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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds beyond that by disclosing the data source ('Stratalize contract intelligence composite') and the cost ('$0.10 USDC per call'). It also clarifies the output scope ('for any major vendor') and provides a concrete example, which is useful behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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?

The description is four sentences with no repetition: when to use, what it returns, a concrete motivating example, and source/cost. The usage guidance is front-loaded, and the example earns its place by showing why the output matters. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the input scope, lists the exact outputs, provides a real example, names the data source, and notes the cost. No critical calling information is missing.

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 schema has one unannotated parameter (vendor_name) with 0% schema description coverage. The description partially compensates by stating the tool works 'for any major vendor' and illustrating the expected value with 'Salesforce.' The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description adds a scale/coverage qualifier that is not in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns typical contract length, auto-renewal notice window, price escalation percentage, and key risk clauses.' It also gives a concrete Salesforce example with exact numbers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling benchmark tools like get_vendor_benchmark and get_vendor_negotiation_intelligence by focusing on contract terms rather than generic pricing or negotiation advice.

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 opens with 'Use when reviewing a new vendor agreement or benchmarking contract terms before a negotiation,' giving clear situational context. It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools, but the context is specific enough to guide selection among many vendor-related siblings.

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