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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns a string. It does not disclose error conditions or performance characteristics, but read-only nature is covered. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use, and what it returns. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description should elaborate on the return format (e.g., plain text vs HTML) and parameter specifics. It says 'text/HTML' but lacks detail. Adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for robust selection.

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 only 40%, and the description does not explain any parameters in detail. Parameters like 'template' and 'signerAddress' are left unclear, requiring the agent to infer from names. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's sparse descriptions.

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 it renders the legal contractual agreement text/HTML for an offer, with specific inputs (offer data and metadata) and output (rendered agreement string). This distinguishes it from sibling transaction tools like 'commit_to_offer' which execute blockchain actions.

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 says 'Use to preview or store the agreement', which implies appropriate use cases but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The sibling list shows it's a rendering tool, but no comparative guidance is given.

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