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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether the tool mutates content, whether it is read-only, what artifacts it produces, or any limits. The phrase 'Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling' vaguely suggests the tool ships prompt-pack content rather than performing a rewrite, which is confusing rather than informative.

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 short sentences, but none is front-loaded with the operation and the opening line ('Turn expertise into output') is pure sloganeering. The text is small yet largely wasted on promotional claims instead of function.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain invocation and result, and it does neither; it reads as a product blurb for a prompt pack. An agent has insufficient information to decide when to call it or what to expect back.

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% for the single optional 'query' parameter, so the schema already defines it; the description adds no meaning about what a scoping query should contain or how it affects the rewrite. The high-coverage baseline of 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 name and the phrase 'contract rewrite tool' hint at rewriting contracts, but the description itself spends its words on marketing ('Turn expertise into output', 'produce professional results in minutes') and never states the actual operation, what it returns, or how it differs from the many contract-* siblings such as contract-polish-tool and contract-write-tool. An agent reading only this text cannot tell what happens when the tool is called.

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 only contextual clue is the audience ('restaurant and brand teams'), which is not a when-to-use condition. There is no guidance on when this beats contract-polish-tool, contract-audit-tool, or contract-write-tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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