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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'Tracks all DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses,' which hints at validation or enforcement behavior, but it does not explain update semantics (e.g., requires contract_id to update), return values, permissions, or what happens when mandatory clauses are missing. The description is too sparse to adequately inform the agent about side effects or prerequisites.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word is purposeful—it states the operation, the resource type, and a key feature (DORA tracking). There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (28 parameters, mutation behavior, no annotations, no output schema), the description is starkly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, error handling, update vs. create behavior, or how the contract is identified. It also lacks references to related tools or workflow context. The description is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 only 4% (only is_cif has a description), so the description must compensate by explaining the many parameters. It does not explain any of the 28 fields, their relationships, or which are required. The mention of 'DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses' hints that many booleans correspond to clauses, but it lacks specificity. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add or update an ICT third-party contract.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like contract_gaps or clause_check. The additional note about tracking 'all DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses' gives further specificity about its scope.

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 creating or updating contract records but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, though the 'add or update' phrasing suggests a write operation distinct from the read/analysis siblings. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, which meets the baseline for implied usage.

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