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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious validation rule: content must contain signature placeholders and each signer needs a unique placeholder via signer_fields. However, it does not explain whether the contract is sent immediately, what the return value is, or other side effects.

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?

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the critical placeholder rule following. The phrase 'Requires at least one signer' is redundant with the schema's minItems:1, but overall the description is appropriately sized and structured.

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?

Covers the central creation requirements and the most important validation rule. It leaves gaps: no return value described (and no output schema), and several parameters (variables, expires_in_days, name) are undocumented, which is significant for a 6-parameter tool with nested objects.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for content vs template_id and explains signer_fields usage with example placeholders. But it does not clarify name, variables, expires_in_days, or the full structure of the signer objects.

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 and resource: 'Create a new contract from a template or with custom content.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like contract_update, contract_send, and contract_cancel, and the two creation modes are explicit.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: creating a new contract, either from a template or with custom content. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the creation intent is unambiguous.

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