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

Annotations only mark it as non-read-only and closed-world; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the lawyer works for and bills the user directly, Dealroom takes no fee or recommendation, the invitation is free with no credit consumed, and signing is blocked until approval or cancellation. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure an agent needs for a gating mutation.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first sentence and follows with consequences and cost. The billing/disclaimer sentences are somewhat verbose but each carries decision-relevant information, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the important downstream effect (signing waits on approval) but says nothing about what the call returns or how to track the invited lawyer's status. Otherwise complete for a 4-parameter invite tool.

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 every parameter including the lang enum fallback and the dealId source is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general 'by e-mail' framing, which maps to the email parameter but adds no syntax or format detail. 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?

States a specific verb (invite), resource (a lawyer of the user's choice), mechanism (by e-mail), and scope (to review the contract in attorney review). No sibling tool offers attorney review, so the function is unambiguous.

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?

Explains the condition of use (any lawyer the user invites) and the consequence that signing waits until the lawyer approves or the user cancels, which frames when this tool applies. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, but no sibling performs a comparable action.

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