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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses non-obvious traits: enterprise status, pay-per-use pricing, network (Base), cost amount, and the non-legal-advice limitation. It does not detail output format or data handling, but the core operational traits are surfaced.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and bundles vital operational details into a clear suffix. Every segment adds value with no repetitive or filler text.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the input domain, the nature of the review, a legal disclaimer, and cost information. The main remaining gap is that the output format is not explicitly described, but 'by clause' reasonably implies clause-level findings.

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 coverage is 100%, but the schema description only says 'service input', which is generic. The tool description adds essential semantic content: the input should be a contract or policy to be reviewed for clause-level risk. That meaningfully extends 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 states a specific action ('contract risk review by clause') and a specific resource type ('contract/policy'), and adds an explicit limitation ('NOT legal advice'). This clearly differentiates it from broader tools like risk-analysis or compliance-audit.

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?

It tells the agent to pass a contract or policy as input and frames the task as contract risk review rather than legal advice. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use beyond the legal-advice exclusion, so it misses a full 5.

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