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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the use of Claude API and the output format, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires any permissions, leaving the agent with incomplete safety information.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, usage, and technology. There is no wasted wording or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and output. It could note whether results are stored or purely computational, but the essential usage is sufficiently 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (contract_text, provider_name). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reiterating 'Paste contract text' and does not explain how provider_name affects the analysis, so it only meets the schema-coverage baseline.

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 explicitly states a specific verb and resource: 'LLM-based DORA Art. 30 contract analysis' and the output 'clause-by-clause PRESENT/PARTIAL/MISSING for all 15 mandatory clauses.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'check_contract' or '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 instruction 'Paste contract text' provides clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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