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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false annotations, the description discloses that the tool reads only the call material, performs no page fetch or account access, causes no money movement, requires wallet proof binding, and returns an Ed25519 signed receipt. The payment model and quota are also stated.

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 front-loaded with the core action, input expectations, and output, then moves to materiality, safety, pricing, and authentication. It is dense but mostly purposeful; the contract URL and human-page link add some length that is not needed for every invocation.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains that the result is a signed report with quoted clauses and offsets, plus an Ed25519 receipt. For a paid, read-only tool with five documented parameters, it supplies enough pricing, auth, and side-effect context for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents before, after, format, and the optional labels. The description adds only high-level details such as size and plain-or-HTML input, without adding per-parameter syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: submit two contract versions and get a signed clause-diff report grouped by topic. It also defines materiality (figure, obligation word, negation, or topic change) and distinguishes wording-only edits, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool produces.

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?

It clearly says to provide before and after texts, supports plain text or HTML up to 256 KB each, and explains pricing and free-call limits. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as terms-evidence-check or explain when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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