legal_contract_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the memo's content but does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies the contract or creates external artifacts, or what permissions are needed. Limited 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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and lists parameters in a clear format. A minor improvement could be separating the parameter list from the narrative for better scanability.

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 there is an output schema (not shown), the description mentions the memo's content. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., playbook is important but optional), error handling, or steps after memo generation. Adequate but with gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter: message (free-text objective), contract_url (required URL), playbook (with examples), and counterparty_name (memo context). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 reviews a contract and produces a redline-ready memo covering deviations, missing clauses, risk terms, and proposed edits. The verb 'review' and resource 'contract' with specific output types distinguish it from sibling legal tools like legal_compliance_monitoring or legal_document_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 implies usage for contract review with a playbook, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., legal_nda_packet, legal_compliance_monitoring) or provide exclusion criteria. No direct guidance on when not to use it.

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