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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (risk score 0-100, verbatim quotes, paste-ready redlines) and that perspective drives redline generation, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, input length limits on raw_text, or any auth/rate considerations.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that puts the action and resource first and the three outcomes after. The 'API #02:' prefix is catalog noise that earns no place in the definition, which is the only real defect.

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?

For a 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers what it produces (score, quotes, redlines) and the domain well. It could still state read-only semantics and input limits, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds marginal context by tying the redline/fallback output to the negotiating perspective, but adds no syntax, format, or size guidance beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (audit), a concrete resource with enumerated types (MSAs, NDAs, Subcontracts, SaaS agreements), and the three concrete outputs: toxic-clause detection, a 0-100 risk score, and verbatim quotes with fallback redlines. This is distinguishable from siblings like scan_far_dfars_clauses or parse_b2b_contract, which operate on different clause domains.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this to audit a contract for risk,' but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools it overlaps with (parse_b2b_contract, scan_far_dfars_clauses). No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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