Open Agreements

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a document via URL or MCP resource, and that redline generation occurs for field-selector templates. With annotations only indicating it is not read-only and not destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds an important conditional behavior. No redundant information.

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 description explains the tool's purpose, return modes, and the special redline case. Given the tool has no output schema and a nested `values` object, the description is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand the tool's behavior, though it could elaborate on expected `values` structure, but the schema covers that.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds contextual information about redline generation for field-selector templates but does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fills a legal agreement template with field values and returns a document, distinguishing it from sibling tools that only list or retrieve templates. It also specifies the redline generation behavior for field-selector templates.

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?

While it doesn't name alternative tools, the description clearly implies the tool is for creating filled documents, and the sibling names suggest alternatives for reading templates. The conditional redline behavior for field-selector templates provides clear context on when that feature applies.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return-value context ('full field metadata') but does not discuss potential errors or edge cases. Given the simple read operation, the additional context is minimal but acceptable.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and contains no extraneous information.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and hints at the return content ('full field metadata'). It is adequate but could be more explicit about the return structure or non-existence handling.

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%, with a clear description and example for template_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single template definition'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('full field metadata'), differentiating it from list_templates and search_templates by the 'single' qualifier.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_templates or search_templates, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The 'single' qualifier implicitly contrasts with list/search, but no direct guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds that results are paginated, compact/lightweight metadata, and in stable lexicographic order by template_id. It does not describe return fields, but that's acceptable given the 'call get_template' pointer.

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?

Three sentences, first sentence immediately states purpose; no filler or redundancy. Every sentence adds distinct information (scope, guidance, ordering/alternative).

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a pointer to get_template for detail, the description covers usage and behavior adequately. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that it returns lightweight metadata for discovery.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for limit and cursor, so the description adds little beyond mentioning pagination. Baseline 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description opens with 'List all available legal agreement templates as a paginated compact catalog' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting get_template for full detail and search_templates for topic-based discovery.

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?

Explicitly says 'call get_template for full per-field detail' and 'use search_templates instead' for topic/jurisdiction/source searches. This clearly delineates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond annotations by revealing the BM25 ranking algorithm and specifying the exact searchable fields (names, descriptions, categories, sources, field definitions). This provides useful behavioral context beyond what structured data conveys, though it omits details like result count handling or ordering behavior.

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 long and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds valuable ranking details, and the third gives usage guidance. No filler or redundancy—every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool, the description is complete: it states what it searches, how it ranks results, and when to use it. There is no output schema, so return value explanation is not required, and the parameter scope is fully covered by the schema. The guidance about using it instead of list_templates completes the contextual picture.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaning for the query parameter by stating it searches across names, descriptions, categories, sources, and field definitions, giving insight into how the query behaves. This is more than just restating the schema and adds value for parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('legal agreement templates'), and further specifies that it searches by keyword. It is explicitly differentiated from the sibling tool list_templates by saying 'Use this instead of list_templates when you know what kind of agreement you need,' making it obvious what this tool does that others don't.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage guideline: 'Use this instead of list_templates when you know what kind of agreement you need.' This is a clear when-to-use instruction with a named alternative, which is exactly what the dimension asks for. It also implies that list_templates is for browsing all templates, adding further context.

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