compare_contracts

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 'clause-aware diff' but does not explain what clause-awareness entails, whether the open contract is modified, any preconditions (e.g., document must be open), or output format. This is insufficient for a diff tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it omits critical details about parameters and behavior, making it efficient but incomplete.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex (diff with clause awareness) and has no annotation or parameter descriptions. The description fails to cover how to use the tool effectively, such as the meaning of 'align_by' or what the output contains.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (other_path, output_path, align_by) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter meaning, default values, or allowed values, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema, which has no descriptions.

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 it does a 'clause-aware diff between the open contract and another .docx file', specifying the verb (compare/diff), resource (open contract and another file), and scope (clause-aware). This distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'compare_documents'.

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 clause-aware contract comparison but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives like 'compare_documents'. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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