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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload and the alignment taxonomy (EXACT, IMPLIED, PARTIAL, MISSING, CONFLICT, AMBIGUOUS), but says nothing about input size limits, whether extraction is deterministic, or how ambiguity is resolved.

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, no filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the return contract second. 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 no output schema, the description correctly steps in to enumerate the returned fields and alignment categories, which is exactly what the agent needs. It falls just short on operational details such as text length limits or handling of ambiguous inputs for a two-document analysis tool.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented as free-text inputs, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond that, which is the expected 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 (extract) and resource (promises) plus the second operation (align against contract terms), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. With no siblings to differentiate from, this is as clear as it needs to be.

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 implies the use case (comparing a sales conversation against a contract) but never states when to reach for this tool or what prerequisites apply. Since no sibling tools exist, there is no alternative to route away from, so the omission is tolerable but leaves usage only implied.

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