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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Writes nothing' (read-only), discloses that HTML is self-contained and a Pro feature, and lists what the rendered output contains. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state the return format (e.g., string) or error behavior, but the format is implied by the format parameter.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact enumeration of document contents and a clear format constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, contents, format, and side effects. It could explicitly state that the output is a document string and how missing agreements are handled, but these are minor omissions. Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds only the Pro feature note for HTML and the self-containment detail, which duplicates the schema description. It provides no substantive additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 (render) and resource (service agreement), and enumerates the exact sections included, making its function unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from siblings by the action – rendering a document for signing, not creating, retrieving, or updating status.

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 conveys a clear context: rendering a document ready to send and sign, and mentions format options (markdown vs html). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like agreement_get (which returns raw data) or agreement_update_status, so exclusions are left implicit rather than stated.

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