Signed rule-based extraction of the clauses that decide money and liability (PAID $1.50)

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and open-world; the description adds material context they do not cover: the call is paid (1.50 USD via x402 on eip155:8453) and hits a specific remote POST route. It omits what happens without payment or how long extraction takes, but the cost/payment-rail disclosure is the key behavioral fact an agent needs before calling.

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?

Brief and the payment/route information is useful, but the first sentence restates the title almost verbatim, spending the most prominent position on text the agent already sees. The route line earns its place; the opening does not add much.

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 return values need not be described, but for a five-parameter paid extraction tool the description leaves the entire input contract unexplained and provides no usage context. It is not sufficient for an agent to call this tool confidently without trial and error.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them — not the document_b64 vs document_text choice or precedence, not document_type, jurisdiction, or as_of. With no descriptions anywhere, an agent cannot tell how to supply the document or which fields matter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: rule-based extraction of contract clauses concerning money and liability, which distinguishes it from generic extractors like v1_utils_invoice_extract or v1_sec_extract. It never names a sibling or contrasts scope explicitly, but the purpose is clear from the first sentence.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only adds the transport route and price, so an agent must infer from the name when this tool is the right choice over the many other v1_* extraction and evidence tools.

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