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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost ($0.5 per call) and a legal disclaimer, but omits contract text handling, storage, privacy, output format, and failure behavior.

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, each earning its place: purpose first, then legal disclaimer, then pricing. No filler or repetition.

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 with no output schema, the description sufficiently states the summary dimensions and cost. It could be stronger by specifying output format or length, but it is broadly complete for invocation.

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% for the single required parameter, so the schema already defines 'document' as contract text. The description adds no parameter syntax, length limits, or format guidance beyond that baseline.

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: summarize a contract, and specifies the exact output dimensions (parties, dates, obligations, risks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like invoice extraction and CV screening without requiring schema inspection.

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 task implies when to use it—when a contract needs summarization—but gives no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. There is no guidance on when to use fikra_quote, fikra_chat, or other siblings instead.

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