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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Reads only.' It adds behavioral value beyond annotations by disclosing that ambiguous title matches cause a refusal, which is not present in the structured metadata. This helps the agent anticipate error conditions.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs action, purpose, and a behavioral constraint with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the critical workflow hint appears before the refusal caveat.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the core workflow trigger (before contract_assemble), the output concept (which variable is used by which clause), and a notable edge case (ambiguous titles refused). It does not detail return formatting or error handling for missing ids, but the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage make that gap acceptable.

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% for clause_ids, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of these ids ('the clauses you name') and by clarifying that titles are accepted but rejected when ambiguous ('a title matching several is refused'), which goes beyond the schema's 'Clause ids or titles.'

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 verb and resource: 'List every {{variable}} the clauses you name use, and which clause uses each.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like contract_assemble by referencing its role in gathering facts before assembly, and from clause_get/clause_list by focusing on variable dependencies rather than clause content.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'so the facts are gathered before contract_assemble leaves bracketed prompts.' It also notes a key constraint ('a title matching several is refused'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, though the timing cue is strong enough for an agent to infer the intended workflow.

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