Evaluate contract structures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool evaluates all configured contracts and returns per-contract outputs plus binding flags, including specific flag meanings. Since this is a read-style evaluation tool, no side-effect disclosure is critical.

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 no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second lists supported structures and return values. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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, but the description explains the return value well enough (per-contract outputs and binding flags). It does not detail the exact output shape or edge cases, but for a two-parameter evaluation tool with defaults documented in the schema, this is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by naming the supported contract structures (grade_multiplier, discount_profit_share, collar, assay_payables) and clarifying that evaluation happens at spot prices, which maps meaningfully to the prices 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 names a specific action ('Evaluate'), a clear resource ('all configured offtake/feedstock contract structures'), and the context ('at spot'). It also enumerates supported structure types and return contents, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like evaluate_covenants or product_margins.

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 phrase 'at spot' gives a clear usage context, and 'all configured ... contract structures' indicates scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is clear enough for an agent to select it over margin or covenant tools.

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