legal_contract_review

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description frames the action as a review that 'produces' a memo without disclosing side effects, such as whether the contract artifact is modified, whether redlines are written back, or what authentication/authorization is required. The description adds output details but no behavioral risk context, which is significant given the destructiveHint annotation.

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 front-loaded with a clear first sentence and then uses a compact Args block to document parameters without padding. It is appropriately sized for a four-parameter tool, losing one point only because the 'required' label for contract_url conflicts with the schema.

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 covers the input semantics and the output memo contents, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not critical. However, it lacks usage versus sibling tools, fails to clarify the destructive side effect implied by annotations, and contains a required-field contradiction with the schema, leaving an agent with material ambiguity about invocation constraints.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: message as free-text objective, contract_url as URL or artifact URI, playbook with an explicit label list ('enterprise_sales', 'partnership', 'employment', 'nda'), and counterparty_name as the memo's counterparty. However, it marks contract_url as required while the schema declares 0 required parameters, creating a meaningful inconsistency.

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?

States a specific action ('Review a contract') and a specific deliverable ('redline-ready memo') with enumerated contents: deviations from playbook, missing clauses, risk-flagged terms, and proposed edits. This clearly differentiates from siblings like legal_document_drafting or business_review_contract by describing a review-and-annotate output rather than drafting or simple review.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as business_review_contract or legal_vendor_renew. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite context, so an agent must infer applicability from the tool name and output description.

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