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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a non-destructive write operation, which the description aligns with. Beyond annotations, it adds valuable behavior: omitted variables stay as bracketed prompts ('never invented'), clause_ids order equals document order, and the free-tier cap of 8 clauses. These are genuinely useful disclosures not present in structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by two behavioral constraints (variable non-invention, ordering) and the tier limit. No wasted words; each 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 moderately complex tool (8 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, format, variable behavior, ordering, and usage limits. Schema handles parameter details. Minor gap: no statement about what happens on success/failure, but given 100% schema coverage this is not a serious omission.

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%, so all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the values/ordering behavior (already in the schema) and adds only the free-tier limit — marginal new value beyond the schema baseline of 3.

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 ('build') and resource ('a contract from library clauses'), with output formats specified. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all clause-level operations (clause_add, clause_delete, clause_get) or license management — none assemble documents.

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?

'Call this tool to build a contract from library clauses' gives clear, direct invocation context. No sibling offers an assembly alternative, so explicit exclusion isn't needed; the guidance is unambiguous about when this tool applies.

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