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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is only meaningful after a lawyer releases it, it contains placeholders rather than real party data, and the finished PDF/Word document is available only on the private page and signing e-mail. That tells the agent what it cannot retrieve here, which is valuable. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't say what happens if the agreement isn't yet released.

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 sentences, with the availability precondition front-loaded before the content description and the PDF/Word contrast. Slightly unusual colon construction in the first sentence, but no wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by characterizing the returned format (Markdown, placeholder tokens, blank addresses/signatures). Combined with readOnlyHint, an agent knows enough to call it and interpret the result; only the not-yet-released failure behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, and both matterId and matterToken are documented as coming from open_matter, so the schema carries the weight. The description adds no meaning about parameters beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 concretely states what comes back: the agreement in Markdown with placeholders and blank signatures, and contrasts it with the final PDF/Word version that lives elsewhere. The verb is only implicit (the title supplies 'Fetch'), and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_engagement_terms or get_requirements, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives one real precondition — 'Once a lawyer has released it' — and a purpose ('so you can explain it to the user'), which implies when to call it. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion against the other get_* tools, leaving routing largely to inference.

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