Analyze a contract for risks and red flags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the analysis is AI-generated (transparent about automation) and explicitly says 'Not legal advice' (important behavioral disclosure). It does not mention data handling or other side effects, but for a read-only analysis tool this is acceptable.

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 well-structured sentences: first explains what the tool does, second adds critical usage notes (free, daily limit, disclaimer). Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description outlines the return content (red flags, one-sided clauses, etc.). Input schema fully documents parameters. The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers purpose, limitations, and disclaimer, making it complete for an AI agent.

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%, leaving little burden on description. However, the description adds value by providing an example for the optional focus parameter ('IP ownership', 'termination terms') and reiterating the character limits (200 to 50,000) for contract_text, aiding correct usage.

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's purpose: analyzing contract text for risks and red flags. It lists specific outputs (red flags, one-sided clauses, missing protections, questions to ask) and distinguishes from narrower siblings like check_non_compete_enforceability.

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 mentions a usage limit (2/day) and a disclaimer (not legal advice), but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_non_compete_enforceability or list_contract_types. It implies usage for general contract risk analysis but lacks exclusions.

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