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

The description discloses return behavior ('Returns the reference, the fee and the file path'), the nature of the output ('template skeleton for a lawyer to review, not legal advice'), and a rate limit ('Free tier: 3 agreements per month'). These add substantial context beyond the spartan annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second lists return values, and the third covers the legal-review caveat and quota. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and the draft nature of the document. Yet given the large sibling set and 9 parameters, a short note on why contract_create should be chosen over proposal_create or doc_create would make it more complete.

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 89%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning to any specific parameter; it only mentions 'fee' as part of the return value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('produce') and a clear resource ('freelance service agreement .docx'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like proposal_create or doc_create, but the resource type is specific enough to be distinguished in most cases.

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 an explicit call-to-action: 'Call this tool to produce a freelance service agreement .docx.' It adds context about the template being for lawyer review and the free-tier limit, but it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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