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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and there is no contradiction. The description adds the governing legal framework as context, but says nothing about output shape, jurisdiction caveats, or assumptions made when inputs are ambiguous.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the legal basis is attached efficiently rather than padded into separate sentences. 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, for a legal risk-evaluation tool the description omits applicability conditions, jurisdictional assumptions, and routing guidance relative to the five sibling tools, leaving real gaps.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema (margin in EUR, dependency percentage, notice months, duration years). The description adds no additional meaning such as units, thresholds, or how these inputs interact in the assessment, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Evaluates') and a specific resource ('financial and legal exposure for abrupt rupture of established B2B commercial relationships') anchored to a precise legal provision (Article L. 442-1, II). An agent can tell this is a risk-assessment tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like french_b2b_clause_validator or french_breach_remedy_notice.

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 names the scenario it covers but gives no explicit when-to-use instruction, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative sibling tools for adjacent questions (clause validity, breach remedies, limitation periods). The agent must infer applicability from the legal citation alone.

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