contract_sent_email

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

With no annotations, the description adds good behavioral context: it explains the email's content structure and optional parameters' effects (e.g., signing_deadline changes sign-off). It does not detail any side effects, but the tool is a content generator with no destructive actions implied.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds essential information about the tool's function and distinctiveness.

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 content generation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid understanding of what the email contains and the optional inputs' behavior. It could be improved by explicitly stating the output (e.g., 'returns the email text').

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how optional parameters affect the email content (e.g., signing_deadline omission changes sign-off, signing_link presence changes CTA), which goes beyond the schema.

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 tool's action ('Write the short covering email') and resource ('contract or agreement'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'contract_template' by clarifying that this is the email wrapping the contract, not the document itself.

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 clearly explains what the email does and differentiates it from 'contract_template', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among other sibling tools like follow-up emails.

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