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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns risk level, red flags, negotiation points, and processes in plain English. It does not specify whether the tool is read-only or stores data, which could be important. The behavioral traits are adequately but not exhaustively covered.

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: two effective sentences without waste. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second lists outputs and usage. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, inputs, and outputs fairly well. However, without an output schema, the description could be more precise about the format of the returned data (e.g., JSON structure). The mention of 'plain English' and specific outputs helps but leaves some ambiguity.

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 100% for all 3 parameters, so the description adds little extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. The description mentions auto-detection and default party, which is mildly helpful but not substantial.

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 verb 'scan' and the resource 'any contract, terms of service, employment agreement, or legal document'. It lists specific outputs: risk level, red flags with clause location, negotiation points. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which appear to perform contract scanning.

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 says 'Use when user pastes a contract... and wants to know what to watch out for.' This provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or point to alternatives, though no obvious sibling alternative exists, it could be more explicit.

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