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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the paid nature and exact price ($0.06 USDC), which is a real behavioral trait, but says nothing about latency, whether comparison is symmetric, or what the response contains. The payment handshake is left entirely to the schema's paymentSignature description.

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 sentence with no filler, and the cost/payment gate is front-loaded before the purpose clause. Efficient, though the cost-first ordering slightly buries what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should describe what the comparison returns (structure, verdicts, scoring). It names the risk dimensions but not the output shape, leaving a gap for a paid tool with a non-trivial result.

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 schema already documents textA/textB, the optional titles, and the x402 paymentSignature flow. The description adds no format or size guidance for the contract inputs, 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?

States a specific verb ('compares') and resource ('two contracts') and enumerates the comparison dimensions (renewal, notice, penalties, operational risk). The two-contract scope implicitly differentiates it from single-contract siblings like analyze_contract_risk, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 guidance on when to pick this over analyze_contract_risk, review_vendor_contract_risk, or the other analysis siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied payment. The cost mention hints at a gating condition but is not framed as usage guidance.

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