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

Annotations declare a mutating, closed-world tool, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses that one prepaid credit is charged, that insufficient credit yields HTTP 402 PAYMENT_REQUIRED with nothing created, and that clause omissions fall back to standard options. It also documents the return payload (Markdown plus deal id, Dealroom link, and format links) and notes re-fetching is free.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and input expectation, then clause defaults, then cost/failure, then return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; the trailing enumeration of return links is slightly run-on but justified given there is no output schema.

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?

For an 11-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the two burdens the schema cannot: payment/error behavior and the return format. It leaves implicit how to recover from errors other than insufficient credit and does not explain the role parameter, but the core requirements for a correct call are present.

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 91%, so the schema already documents most parameters (baseline 3). The description adds genuine semantic value on omission behavior — unspecified clauses take the standard option and an absent counterparty leaves its block blank — which the schema does not spell out. It does not cover role or governingLaw specifics, keeping it below 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Make a finished contract in one call'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like initiate_negotiation (negotiation flow) and get_template (read-only), because it names the one-call, finished-output behavior. An agent can tell instantly this is the end-to-end contract creation path.

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?

It states what inputs to supply (contract type, your side's details, optionally the other side's) and the clause-default rule, giving clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use (e.g. use initiate_negotiation to negotiate terms first), so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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