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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what scoring scale or method is used, whether results are persisted, or what the output shape looks like.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's focus.

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?

Despite a simple one-parameter schema, the tool lacks output schema and annotations. The description omits output format, scoring methodology, and selection guidance, which is especially important given many overlapping sibling tools.

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 0% and the description does not mention contract_id or how it is used. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource (contract scoring) and enumerates risk categories (exit risk, lock-in, jurisdiction, subcontracting gaps), making its scope fairly clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' or 'returns', so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

No explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance is provided. The listed categories imply use for multi-dimensional red-flag assessment, but the description does not differentiate from overlapping siblings like exit_readiness, subcontracting_chain, or contract_gaps.

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