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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the validation is read-only, what output format to expect, whether it modifies the contract, or any prerequisites (e.g., contract exists). The verb 'validate' remains vague about the underlying process.

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?

A single sentence of fifteen words that front-loads the verb and object, then adds a specific qualifying phrase. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does not convey enough context for an agent to fully understand the validation's behavior, expected result, or how it complements sibling tools. The phrase 'standard + CIF' is cryptic and may confuse without further explanation.

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 only parameter, contract_id, is not explicitly described. The description's general reference to 'a contract' implicitly tells the agent what the ID is for, but it adds no extra constraints, usage context, or source for obtaining a valid ID. The schema already provides the type and required flag, leaving room for more semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate'), a concrete object ('a contract'), and names the precise regulatory scope ('all DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses'). The qualifier '(standard + CIF)' distinguishes it from sibling tools like cif_analysis and contract_gaps.

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 a clear use case (checking DORA Art. 30 compliance) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are referenced or excluded, leaving room for ambiguous selection.

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