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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'analyze,' which suggests a read-only operation but does not state side effects, whether results are saved, if any authentication is needed, or what happens after execution. No behavioral context beyond the obvious is provided.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information, 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter hints, the description is too sparse for a compliant-based analysis tool. It fails to specify whether the tool returns a report, modifies data, or requires existing contracts to be registered. The agent can infer the subject but not the outcome or prerequisites.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot be expected to explain them. It does add contextual meaning by specifying the scope ('all Critical/Import Function contracts'), which helps the agent understand what the tool operates on. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 analyzes Critical/Import Function contracts for enhanced Art. 30(3) requirements, distinguishing it from generic contract-analysis siblings like contract_analyze_llm or contract_gaps. Terminology like 'enhanced Art. 30(3) requirements' is specific but not explained, so full clarity is slightly reduced.

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 implies usage for a compliance-focused review of a specific contract subset, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, mention prerequisites, or indicate that it operates on already-registered contracts. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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