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

The description adds one genuinely behavioural fact not in the annotations: a fixed price of $0.50 per call, which matters because idempotentHint=false means repeated calls incur repeated cost. Beyond that it is silent on what happens to the submitted document, whether results are stored, or what the response looks like — and with readOnlyHint=false the agent has no annotation-based reassurance about side effects.

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?

Two compact fragments, no filler, with the covered terms front-loaded. It is slightly telegraphic — the price sentence sits between the capability and the use case — but every sentence carries information.

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 single-input analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations describing side effects, the description is adequate but thin: it names the topics it will cover yet says nothing about the shape of the returned explanation or how long/detailed it will be, so an agent cannot predict the result.

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?

There is a single parameter ('document') with 100% schema description coverage, so the 3 baseline applies. The description adds nothing about expected format, length limits, or whether plain text versus pasted markdown is acceptable for the document.

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 gives a specific verb ('Explain') and enumerates the contract domains covered: salary, notice, non-compete, confidentiality and termination. That differentiates it reasonably well from sibling extractors (fikra_extract_contract_obligations, fikra_extract_contract_dates) and summarisers, though it never names those siblings 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 phrase 'Understanding an offer or employment agreement before signing' implies the usage context (pre-signature review of an employment offer), which is more than nothing. However, no alternatives are named and no exclusions are stated, so an agent must infer why it would pick this over fikra_summarise_contract or fikra_analyse_contract_risks.

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