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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that nothing is ranked or recommended, defines the empty-template behavior ('the answer says so'), and states cost ('Free (no credit)') — a meaningful detail given credit-related siblings. It stops short of describing pagination or size limits.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the return content before the behavioral caveats and the cost note. No filler, though the phrasing around 'pros and cons for each party' is slightly dense.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well: it enumerates what comes back and handles the empty case. Annotations cover safety. The only shortfall is the absent parameter coverage, particularly the lang option.

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 67%, and the description contributes nothing about any of the three parameters — no mention of lang, clause, or contractType. The undocumented lang enum/default is left entirely to the schema, and the description does not compensate for that gap. Below the 3 baseline because it adds zero parameter meaning.

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 resource and its scope: the options of a single clause, each with description, per-party pros/cons, and the clause's trade-off text, drawn 'exactly as the template holds them.' That is clearly distinguishable from get_template/find_template, though it never names those siblings, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 is implied (call this to learn a clause's options and trade-offs) but there is no explicit when-to-use, no condition selecting it over get_template, and no prerequisites. The behavioral caveats are not usage guidance. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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