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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value: the $0.12 USDC cost, the rejection-before-settlement guarantee, the 30-page extraction limit, and the text-based requirement. It falls short on output shape, describing the return only as 'bundled contract triage.'

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the paid nature and input constraint, then the extraction scope and rejection behavior. 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, so the description should characterize the returned triage payload; 'bundled contract triage' is too vague to tell an agent what fields or verdicts come back. Input limits and payment behavior are otherwise well covered.

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 both required and optional parameters (pdfBase64, title, counterparty, paymentSignature) are already documented, including the x402 retry flow. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: extracts up to 30 pages and returns contract triage for text-based PDFs. It clearly separates itself from the text-based sibling triage_contract by scoping to PDFs, though it never names that sibling or the other analyze/extract tools.

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?

Usage constraints are implied rather than spelled out: text-based PDFs only, image-only PDFs rejected, 30-page cap. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over triage_contract or the extract_* siblings, so the agent must infer routing.

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