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

The description discloses tier-dependent behavior (free vs Pro), what each clause contains (title plus body), and the variable-filling behavior when an agreement is passed. Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden and does a good job explaining the read-like behavior despite no readOnlyHint.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds tier details. It's slightly dense with the Pro/free distinction but 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: what's listed, the structure of each clause, and the tier differences. It doesn't specify the exact output format, but that's less critical for a list operation.

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 the agreement parameter. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the parameter is a Pro feature and that it fills variables into clause bodies, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool lists the built-in clause library and enumerates the specific clause types (intellectual property assignment, mutual confidentiality, late payment interest, kill fee, revision rounds). It distinguishes this from agreement-focused siblings by specifying it's about the clause library, not agreements themselves.

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 explains when to pass an agreement (to get variables filled in on Pro) and notes the free tier limitation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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