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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: per-call billing that only charges on business success, with automatic full refund on content violation, model timeout, or generation failure. It does not cover permissions, latency, or what an error response looks like, leaving some gaps.

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, no waste: the review capability is front-loaded and the billing/refund policy follows. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description does sketch the return content (risk levels plus suggested replacement wording), and the billing semantics are covered. Minor gaps remain around output structure and the interaction between retries and the idempotency key.

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 'text', 'party' (with its enum of stances), and 'requestId' idempotency are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: it marks high/medium-risk and missing clauses and supplies replacement wording, which is a concrete contract-review action. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'review' tool, which plausibly overlaps.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over 'review', 'docgen', or other siblings, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. The only usage-adjacent content is the billing rule, which governs cost rather than tool selection.

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