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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the tool is paid ($0.015 USDC), plus the schema hints at the x402 payment flow. It omits return shape, precision/confidence, and whether the extraction is deterministic, so it is partial rather than thorough.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the cost and then the extracted signals. No filler or redundancy, though the price leading the sentence slightly buries the core purpose.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally say what the result looks like and how to interpret missing signals, but it stops at listing the signal types. It is adequate for invocation but leaves return-format and reliability questions unanswered.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the x402 paymentSignature retry flow. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('extracts') and enumerates the exact signals returned (term, expiry, auto-renewal, notice-window) from contract text, which is more informative than the name alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like extract_contract_obligations or extract_payment_terms, so an agent still has to infer boundaries.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling extraction tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the implicit 'contract text' input. The only guidance is the implied price signal, which tells the agent it costs money but not when it is the right choice.

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