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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what inputs are needed beyond contract_id, what the output format is, or any side effects or permissions required. The term 'Evaluate' implies analysis but lacks explicit transparency.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it omits useful details that could be added without sacrificing brevity.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves questions about what 'exit plan readiness' entails, what the output looks like, and how to interpret results. With no output schema or annotations, more context would be expected for full completeness.

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% for the single parameter (contract_id). The description does not elaborate on this parameter or its expected format, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's type string alone. Since there is no compensation, the low-coverage penalty applies.

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 'Evaluate' with a clear resource ('exit plan readiness for a contract') and references Art. 28(8) exit strategies, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_expiry or contract_gaps. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or contrast with siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the various sibling analysis tools. The context is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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