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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the return classification (PASS/WARN/BLOCK, missing clauses, bridge classification), which is valuable behavioral info. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects, leaving some gaps in the safety profile.

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 one succinct sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and follows with the output summary. It contains no filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description provides a concise overview and the schema covers parameters, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves ambiguity around the 'bridge classification' and the tool's role in broader workflows. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline but not enhancing it. Given the high coverage, a 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 clearly states the tool's specific action: 'Check DORA Art. 30 contract clauses for a provider' and defines the scope with the regulation article and target entity. It also mentions the output format (PASS/WARN/BLOCK with missing clauses and bridge classification), which distinguishes it from generic contract tools like contract_analyze.

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 provides a clear context for use: DORA Art. 30 compliance checking. It implies the appropriate scenario without naming alternatives or exclusions. A 5 would require explicit when/when-not guidance, but the specificity of the regulation article makes the usage context quite clear.

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