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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main additional disclosure is 'Never supplies assent,' which is useful legal context but does not explain inspect behavior. It does not clarify what is inspected, whether any state is accessed, or what the response contains; the 'Draft arbitrary clauses' language also muddies the read-only nature even though the selected action is inspect.

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 a one-sentence list of four distinct capabilities plus a legal disclaimer and a mode selector, none of which are front-loaded around the inspect action. Most of the text describes sibling functionality rather than earning its place in this tool's definition.

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?

The tool has a nested free-form object body, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, yet the description provides no explanation of the request shape or the expected return. For an inspect tool with a bare 'body' object and sibling alternatives, this is not enough for correct invocation.

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?

There is one required parameter named 'body' with a nested object and 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With no property descriptions, no constraints, and no description guidance, an agent has no way to know what to put in the body for an inspect action.

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 lists broad capabilities (drafting, preserving ancestry, comparing, rendering) that belong to the sibling tools, then appends 'Selected action: inspect' without saying what 'inspect' actually does. It does not state a specific verb and resource for this tool's core behavior, so an agent cannot tell what covenant_contract__inspect returns or checks.

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 inspect rather than covenant_contract__compare, covenant_contract__draft, or covenant_contract__render, despite those siblings being explicitly named in the description. The phrase 'Selected action: inspect' signals a mode but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

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