_mcp_generate_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only discloses output format (Markdown + optional PDF) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies any data, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is insufficient for an agent assessing invocation safety.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output formats. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and operates in a legal document generation context, the description provides enough to understand the high-level function. However, it omits parameter semantics and behavioral traits, leaving gaps for an agent making a precise invocation decision.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The tool description adds no information about any parameter, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema field names (e.g., 'clauses', 'montant'). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 renders a French-law service contract with specific legal references (Code civil, CPI, RGPD art. 28) and output formats (Markdown + optional PDF). This verb-resource combination and legal specificity distinguish it from sibling tools like _mcp_generate_nda or _mcp_generate_invoice.

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 for French-law service contracts by naming legal references, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided, relying solely on the tool name and context to guide selection.

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