business_review_contract

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

The description discloses no behavioral aspects such as side effects, read-only status, or potential mutations. There are no annotations to supplement this, so the tool's behavior is completely opaque. A user cannot infer whether this tool changes any state or merely reads and analyzes.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core action. It is not verbose or redundant. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices critical details, so while it is concise in structure, it lacks explanatory depth.

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?

The description does not provide enough context for a user to understand when to invoke this tool, what inputs are required, what the output represents, or how it fits into a workflow. Even though an output schema exists, the description alone leaves the tool's context and usage largely undefined.

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?

With six parameters and zero coverage in the description, the meaning and purpose of each parameter (contract_url, focus, context, playbook, project_ref, counterparty_name) are entirely unexplained. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving users to guess how to populate the arguments.

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 function: reviewing a contract against a playbook. It distinguishes this tool from similar contract-related tools (e.g., business_draft_contract, execute_contract_to_cash_invoice) by focusing on the review action. However, the phrase 'as a business primitive' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about the specific outcome.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios that would make this tool the appropriate choice. The user is left without any context for selecting it among the many sibling tools.

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