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

The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: a fixed price of $0.75 per call, which annotations do not convey. However, it says nothing about how the 'perspective' choice alters results, what happens on very long documents, or why readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false are set for what reads as an analysis operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and provenance. The third sentence largely restates the purpose already implied by the first, so it is mildly redundant rather than wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state the return shape (risky clauses plus their section) and the cost, which covers the essentials for a 2-parameter tool. It still leaves undefined what counts as 'risky', the ordering/format of results, and document size limits.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that — notably it never mentions 'perspective' (which party you represent) or how it changes the risk output.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List risky or unusual clauses' plus the output shape ('with the section they came from'). This distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like fikra_extract_contract_obligations and fikra_summarise_contract, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 closing sentence ('Reading a long contract and finding the clauses that need attention') supplies an implied use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusion, and no routing to alternatives such as fikra_summarise_contract or fikra_compare_contracts.

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