legal_nda_packet

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

The description says 'generate' which implies document creation, but it does not disclose side effects such as saving to a system, sending communications, or requiring approvals. It also contradicts the schema by labeling counterparty as required (though schema has default null) and variant as an enum (though schema only has a string), making the actual behavior unclear.

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 with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a brief args list. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the args section partially duplicates the schema information. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 gives a good overview of the output (NDA, side letter, intake form, executive summary), but it does not describe the output schema contents or any side effects like persistence. It also does not compare to sibling tools, making it harder for an agent to determine the right tool in context.

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 description adds meaning to all four parameters: message is explained as free-text objective, variant as one of three options, counterparty as counterparty name, and term_months as confidentiality term length. This goes beyond the schema's type and default values, though the claimed required/enum constraints are not reflected in the 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 that the tool generates a complete NDA packet, listing the components (NDA, side letter, intake form, executive summary) and the requesting party. However, it only mentions mutual or unilateral variants, omitting the employee_confidentiality variant that appears in the args, so it is not entirely complete.

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 vs alternative legal tools (e.g., legal_vendor_renew) or when not to use it. No conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings are mentioned, leaving the agent without usage context.

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