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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations by detailing exactly what data is returned and includes a concrete example with a Sankey-like insight (cost of missing the notice window). It also cites the source, increasing trust. No hidden behaviors are implied.

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 concise, front-loaded with the use case, then lists outputs and provides an example, all in three sentences. Every sentence adds value; the example is particularly informative without being verbose.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies purpose, usage timing, output fields, an illustrative example, and data source. It does not need to explain return structure because the outputs are explicitly enumerated.

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 a single required parameter `vendor_name` with no description (0% coverage). The description implicitly clarifies that the vendor name should be provided ('for any major vendor') and offers 'Salesforce' as an example, but it does not specify format or acceptable naming conventions. This is adequate but not fully compensating for the missing schema description.

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 typical contract length, auto-renewal notice window, price escalation percentage, and key risk clauses for a vendor. It specifies the use context of reviewing a new vendor agreement or benchmarking before negotiation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like negotiation playbooks.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use when reviewing a new vendor agreement or benchmarking contract terms before a negotiation.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and the example reinforces the intended use.

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