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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool costs $0.02 USDC, but does not state that it is a read-only extraction, whether it has side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. The schema parameter paymentSignature partially documents the payment flow, so the description adds little beyond cost.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the pricing and then lists extraction targets. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured to separate cost from capability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description lists the categories of extracted signals, which partially compensates by indicating what the output contains. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., structured JSON vs. free text), error handling, or payment retry behavior beyond what the schema parameter implies.

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 all four parameters (text, title, counterparty, paymentSignature) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as expected text format or optionality assumptions, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it extracts payment-related signals (timing, invoicing, late fees, currency, billing cycle, discounts) from contract text. The field list distinguishes it from generic siblings like extract_contract_obligations, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 siblings such as extract_contract_obligations, check_saas_terms, or get_clausepilot_payment_info. The mention of being a paid tool gives cost context but no routing or exclusion rules.

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