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 useful behavior beyond that: the result set includes clauses/options/bias values and is returned 'best match first' when a query is passed, and it works across English and Spanish input.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then parameter guidance. The query sentence partly restates the schema, but the added examples and ordering note justify its presence.

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 a simple, parameterless-by-default read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how search behaves, and language support. Only the relationship to list_contract_types is left unresolved.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description earns credit above baseline by supplying concrete query examples ('nda', 'dpa', 'hipaa', 'confidencialidad') and clarifying the match-order semantics ('best match first') that the schema does not state.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('List available contract templates') plus the payload contents (clauses, options, bias values), so an agent knows what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_contract_types, which it partly overlaps with by claiming to reveal 'which contract types are available.'

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?

Gives a positive use case ('Use this to understand which contract types are available and what options exist for each clause') but names no alternatives or exclusions. With a sibling named list_contract_types covering a similar-sounding surface, the absence of routing guidance leaves ambiguity.

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