analyze_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's output format (severity, rationale, citations) and that it analyzes contract text. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is adequate but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 with a clear purpose, followed by an explicit Args section. It is front-loaded, uses no unnecessary words, and every part contributes useful information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of contract analysis with legal citations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what outputs to expect. The presence of an output schema likely details the return structure further. Sibling tools provide additional context, and the description is complete for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains the sole parameter 'contract_text' as 'The full text of the contract to analyse.' This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 analyzes an Indian contract, specifically flagging unfair clauses with severity ratings, rationales, and citations to Indian law. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_indian_law and verify_citation.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, such as searching for specific laws or verifying citations.

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