generate_terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the payment requirement, which is a useful behavioral trait (cost implication), but fails to describe other critical aspects such as what the output looks like (e.g., a text document, a file), whether it's a read-only or mutation operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. There's no wasted verbiage, and it efficiently communicates essential information. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring usage guidance more explicitly, but overall, it's appropriately sized for its content.

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 the complexity (11 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and payment aspect but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, output format, and usage context. For a tool that generates legal documents with multiple inputs, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is low at 36%, with only 4 out of 11 parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters beyond what's implied (e.g., 'custom Terms & Conditions' hints at inputs like company details but doesn't specify semantics). It adds no meaningful details about parameter usage, formats, or constraints, leaving most parameters undocumented and unclear in context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generates custom Terms & Conditions for a company.' It specifies the verb ('Generates') and resource ('custom Terms & Conditions'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'check_contract' or 'generate_quote', which might involve similar legal or document generation tasks, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions a payment requirement ('Requires payment (0.005 SOL)'), which implies a cost context, but offers no advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_contract' or 'generate_quote'. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites beyond payment, leaving the agent with little direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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