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

The description explicitly states no records are created, aligning with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It also warns not to infer review or invent legal terms. It does not detail failure modes or side effects beyond that, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, conveying the essential purpose and key constraints in a few sentences with no unnecessary fluff.

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 the complexity of the input schema with many parameters and constraints, the description provides a good high-level summary but lacks details on how to properly populate required fields. It is not fully complete for a user unfamiliar with the domain.

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 hints at a couple of parameters (source_version, complete_agreement_reviewed). Most parameters like cap_table_id, deal_id, vault_id, amount, and cap remain unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter-level information.

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 the tool's purpose: to validate complete agreement text and related data while previewing without creating records. It also specifies the return of a metadata preview and version for prepare_agreement, making it distinct from siblings.

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 provides useful usage context: it is a preview/validation step before prepare_agreement, requires Growth plan, and emphasizes that review must be explicitly confirmed. However, it does not explicitly compare with all sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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