Get intake questions for a contract type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'returns fields, types, options, and validation rules', which is expected for a read operation. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or any hidden side effects. The description is adequate but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds usage guidance and return content. No unnecessary words; every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately explains its purpose, return values, and relationship to sibling tools. It covers the essentials for an agent to use it correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds value by providing example values for 'contract_type' (e.g., 'nda_mutual') and explaining that jurisdiction is an optional filter. This goes beyond the schema, enhancing clarity.

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 it retrieves intake questions for a specific contract type, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'intake questions'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_contract_types' and 'start_contract_draft' by noting these questions are used before drafting.

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 explicitly instructs to 'use these to collect the information needed before calling start_contract_draft', providing clear context on when to use this tool. It implies a prerequisite relationship but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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