check_conditions

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

The description adds context about the output format ('pass/fail/uncertain with grounded evidence') and decision-support nature. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, the description does not need to restate safety, but it does not reveal additional behavioral details like authentication or reversibility.

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, no redundant wording, and the key information is front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place: the conditions, the output nature, and the decision-support scope are all stated efficiently.

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 has only one input parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It names all four conditions and specifies the pass/fail/uncertain plus evidence format. This is complete for a decision-support tool, though it does not mention edge cases like empty input or handling of ambiguous documents.

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 0%, but the single parameter case_text is self-explanatory as the document text. The description refers to 'the document' providing a light mapping, though it does not explicitly say the parameter represents the document. This is adequate for a simple string parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('four conditions precedent') against the document, and names the four conditions (notice timing, notice validity, rent/no-arrears, vacant possession). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like extract_break_clause, find_citation, and assess_validity.

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 description implies usage when evaluating conditions precedent, and states 'Decision-support only' which hints at its advisory role. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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