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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the paid model ($0.02 USDC), which is material for an agent budget, but it does not state that the operation is non-destructive/read-only, nor any failure, timeout, or length-limit 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the two facts an agent most needs: the cost and the output being a compact structured summary. No filler.

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 sketch the return shape and safety profile more than 'compact structured summary' does. The payment mechanics are covered by the schema, but the result contract remains underspecified for a downstream-agent-facing tool.

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%, including the paymentSignature retry flow, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('produces a compact structured contract summary') and resource, which sets it apart from the sibling extract_* and check_* tools. However, it never names a sibling or clarifies the summary's boundary against analyze_contract_risk or extract_contract_obligations.

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 phrase 'for downstream agents and workflows' vaguely implies a use case, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing among the eleven sibling contract tools. An agent cannot tell from this text when summary is preferable to extraction or risk analysis.

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