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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions 'Generate' and 'Browser-based.' It does not explain what the user sees, whether a document is downloaded, or any interactive steps, leaving the actual behavior unclear.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the core action, but the parenthetical 'Browser-based tool' adds little value and is ambiguous. It is concise without unnecessary bulk, though it could be more informative.

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?

Even for a zero-parameter tool, the description is too thin. It doesn't specify the output format, how templates are chosen, or what happens when invoked, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to select and use the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to add.

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 generates business contracts from templates, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from generic document tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling legal generators like NDA or terms generators.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nda-generator or terms-generator. The parenthetical 'Browser-based tool' is vague and doesn't clarify when it should be selected.

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