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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: returns a structured, audited deliverable and states inputs are validated server-side. However, it does not detail what the deliverable contains or any rate limits.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the purpose. The branding phrase 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)' is unnecessary, but the rest is efficient and the key deliverable type is stated early.

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 tool has nested parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify input structure and return format. It only vaguely references 'documented case fields' and 'structured, audited deliverable', leaving the agent to rely on the sparse schema. Not enough for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'async' has a description). The description does not compensate; it only says 'send the documented case fields' without explaining contractContext, contractText, or focus. Required fields and enums are left to the schema alone, which is insufficient for the agent.

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 identifies the tool as a contractual risk scanner that produces a structured, audited deliverable, with a reference case (Salesforce MSA) providing concrete context. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like legal_clause_extractor or talent_contract_risk_mapper, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The reference case implies it is suited for reviewing contracts like MSAs, but there is no direct statement of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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