Contract analysis

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

Annotations already provide read-only/destructive/idempotent hints, and the description adds a meaningful side-effect disclosure: 'Costs credits from the account wallet.' This goes beyond the annotations and tells the agent that invoking the tool consumes wallet funds. It does not detail processing time, file-size limits, or error behavior, but the added credit-cost context is valuable.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the tool's output fields before including the credit-cost warning. Every part earns its place, and the telegraphic arrow style keeps it highly scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the expected result fields, so an agent knows what the tool produces. The credit-cost behavior is also included. It does not explain input precedence when multiple fields are supplied or describe an exact output format, but for a straightforward contract-analysis tool with fully documented parameters, the description is reasonably complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only says 'A contract' generically. The schema already adequately documents text, fileUrl, fileBase64, and fileMimeType, so no compensating explanation is needed.

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 states a specific resource ('contract') and enumerates the extracted fields: parties, effective date, term, renewal, governing law, obligations, and risk clauses. The arrow notation implies analysis/extraction, though no explicit verb appears. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being contract-specific, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like parserail_parse, parserail_extract, or parserail_summarize. The only extra instruction is the warning that it costs credits, which is a cost caveat rather than a usage guideline. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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