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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds domain context that this is a risk assessment rather than a mutation, but it does not disclose how risk is reported or whether results are advisory.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and purpose, with no filler. The heavy legal parentheticals slightly reduce readability but every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description adequately frames the analytical scope for a four-parameter tool, though it omits any note on the type of clauses it does not cover.

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% and all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g. how liability_cap_eur interacts with annual_contract_value_eur to trigger Art. 1170), so it only meets the baseline.

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 (assesses) and a precise resource (statutory validity and unenforceability risk for abusive B2B contract terms), anchoring it with the exact legal grounds (Art. 1170, 1171 C. civ., L. 442-1 C. com.). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (breach notice, termination risk, limitations), but the domain is narrow enough to be distinguishable.

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 never states when to invoke this validator versus alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g. that it is for B2B adhesion contracts). Usage must be inferred from the legal citations in the text.

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