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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a pay-per-use cost and the input format, but does not disclose behavior beyond that: no details on output format, language of the draft, jurisdiction, or any limitations. The '[x402: 0.15 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]' is a pricing note, not behavioral transparency about the operation itself.

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 very concise, two sentences with no wasted words. The key information—what it does and the input—is front-loaded TV, and the pricing note is appended. It is efficient.

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 generates legal contracts, there is a high need for context: contract type, jurisdiction, parties, etc. The description provides only the input field and pricing. With no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient to guide an agent on how to formulate a complete prompt or what to expect in the output.

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 the parameter 'input' is already documented as 'service input', which is vague. The description adds that it is a 'descripción del contrato', providing a bit more meaning than the schema, but it does not clarify expected format, language, or length, so it only partially adds value.

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 a contract draft and specifies the input as a contract description. It uses a specific verb ('genera un borrador') and resource ('contrato'), which distinguishes it from related tools like 'contract-draft' in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 like 'contract-draft' or 'legal-review'. It implies usage by the description itself, but lacks any explicit context or exclusion of other tools.

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