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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the $0.69 USDC cost and that payment is required, but says nothing about what triage actually evaluates, whether the operation is read-only, what the ranking basis is, or how failures on individual contracts are handled.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the price and the batch size. No filler, though the compressed phrasing sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the triage output, the ranking mechanism, or the two-step payment handshake. For a paid batch tool touching up to 10 contracts, this leaves major 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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify aggregate behavior across the contracts array or reinforce the note that paymentSignature should be omitted first to receive the challenge.

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 verb (triage) and resource (contracts) with a batch limit of 10, which is somewhat specific. However, 'portfolio tool' and 'portfolio-level ranking' remain vague, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like triage_contract, triage_pdf_contract, or scan_contract_portfolio_50 that occupy the same space.

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 use this batch variant versus the single-contract triage_contract or the larger scan_contract_portfolio tools. The batched nature is implied only by the name and the '10 contracts' phrase, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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