contract_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key limitation ('NOT legal advice') and the fact that it generates a template, but it does not describe other behavioral traits such as whether it validates inputs, whether the template is generic, or whether the output includes all legally required clauses. The disclaimer adds value but leaves gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and scope, followed by a short necessary disclaimer. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the core purpose, contract types, and legal disclaimer, which is sufficient for a straightforward template generator. It does not address when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the tool's function is distinct enough that this is a minor gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by enumerating the allowed values for contract_type (permanent/casual/fixed_term) and adding legal jurisdiction context. The remaining parameters are self-explanatory from their names (employer_name, employee_name, job_title, monthly_gross_kes, start_date), so their meaning is recoverable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and names the exact resource ('Kenya Employment Act 2007 contract template') with a parenthetical list of contract types (permanent/casual/fixed_term). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like job_match or wage_benchmark, which are analysis/comparison tools rather than document generators.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool when you need a Kenyan employment contract template under the Employment Act 2007, with options for permanent, casual, or fixed-term roles. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the legal disclaimer 'NOT legal advice' adds a caution about appropriate use.

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