extract_clauses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the prerequisite ('doc_id returned by load_contract') and the general output form, but does not describe return structure, error behavior, or the full set of clause types detected. 'Detect' implies read-only behavior, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 two focused sentences plus a terse Args entry. It front-loads purposehare, lists representative clause types, and includes only the necessary parameter guidance. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-oriented tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient invocation guidance: purpose, required input provenance, and a basic indication of output. It could be more complete with explicit return-format or error-handling notes, but these are not critical for basic use.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section does this well: 'doc_id: doc_id returned by load_contract' adds essential meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Doc Id' title and tells the agent exactly where to obtain the value.

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 names a specific action ('Detect standard clause types') and a specific resource ('a loaded contract'), and specifies the output ('a text snippet for each'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like missing_clauses and search_clause_library, which address different use cases.

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 gives clear usage context by stating the tool operates on a loaded contract and that doc_id must come from load_contract. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite and context are unambiguous.

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