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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the tool consumes already-extracted clauses and treats pricing_type as a canonical value rather than inferring it. Return/error behavior is left to the output schema, which is acceptable.

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 two focused sentences, front-loaded with the main action and outputs. It contains no filler and each sentence adds necessary information.

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 read-only/idempotent annotations and an output schema present, the description provides the core contract: inputs must be already-extracted clauses, pricing is canonical, and the outputs are explicitly listed. The main gap is parameter-level detail, but the schema's clear names and enum make the tool adequately callable.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies pricing_type ('valeur canonique, jamais déduit d'un texte libre'). It does not explain evaluation_date, end_date, auto_renewal, or notice_period_days, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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: it calculates maturity, notice deadline, overrun, and urgency from already-extracted clauses. The phrase 'clauses déjà extraites' differentiates it from extraction-focused siblings like extract_energy_document.

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 clearly implies when to use it: after clauses have already been extracted. It also explicitly states an exclusion: pricing type is a canonical value and is never deduced from free text. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a full routing explanation.

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