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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns a 'TEMPLATE — not legal advice and not an executed contract,' reinforcing the safe, read-only behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is compact yet packed with essential information: purpose, structure, output type, and next steps. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (template) and practical next steps (getStarted link). Additional details on parameter interactions would improve completeness.

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 89%, and the description adds value by explaining the agreement structure (Schedule A, Schedule B) and noting that 'revenueTiers' OR 'contributorSharePercent' should be used, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool 'generates a plain-English revenue-share agreement DRAFT' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (calculate_revenue_split, explain_royaltea, etc.) by focusing on drafting agreements.

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?

Provides an explicit use-case pattern: 'draft a rev-share agreement for X to do Y for Z% of revenue.' While it doesn't list when not to use or name alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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