analyze_document

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing the use of Google Gemini, the structure of the returned report (risk assessment, flagged clauses, sentiment), and the plan gating mechanism. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences: the first covers purpose and output, the second covers usage constraints. Every sentence is essential, no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return value. It covers input, output, and plan restrictions. The single-parameter tool is well-documented with no 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'envelopeId' described as 'Envelope ID to analyze'. The description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states the action ('Run AI contract analysis'), the resource ('completed envelope's document'), and the output ('structured report covering risk assessment, flagged clauses, overall sentiment'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_envelope' or 'list_envelopes' by specifying analysis functionality.

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 explicit guidance on plan requirements ('Plan-gated: free accounts receive a 403; upgrade to Pro Lite or above to use this') and error handling ('Surface the 403 message to the user rather than retrying'). While it does not directly compare to siblings, it implies use for document analysis rather than envelope management.

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