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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in any structured field: a fixed price of $0.50 per call. It stops short of describing the output shape or what happens with malformed/long documents, which matter for an extraction tool with no output schema.

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 with no filler; the substantive purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy between sentence one and sentence three, and the pricing sentence interrupts the flow, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple (one fully documented parameter), and purpose plus cost are covered. Still, with no output schema, an agent gets no sense of the return structure (per-party grouping? list of obligation/deadline/payment entries?), which is the main remaining gap for calling it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema descriptions cover 100% of it ('Document text to process.'). The description adds no constraint on document length, format, or whether raw text vs. markdown is expected, so it matches the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: extract each party's obligations, deadlines and payment duties from a contract. The phrasing 'checklist of what must happen and when' further distinguishes it from summary-oriented siblings like fikra_summarise_contract, 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 clause 'Turning a contract into a checklist of what must happen and when' implies the use case (post-signature tracking of duties). It gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not route the agent to alternatives such as fikra_extract_contract_dates or fikra_summarise_contract.

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