audit_clause

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: possible verdicts, server resolution of citations, and instructions for handling special outcomes (insufficient-grounding, escalate-infra). It provides rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by a bullet-like list of verdicts. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. It is front-loaded and concise enough for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (multiple verdicts, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains each verdict, how citations work, and how to handle abstentions. It covers all necessary behavioral aspects for correct invocation.

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 does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., max chars for incoming_clause, const/default for clause_type). No extra value added.

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 audits a clause against the company standard with grounded citations. It specifies the verb 'audit' and the resource 'clause', and distinguishes from siblings 'get_standard' and 'search_clauses' by emphasizing grounded citations and specific verdict types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool and how to handle each verdict: it warns against guessing for 'insufficient-grounding' and instructs to retry for 'escalate-infra'. It also instructs to relay abstentions verbatim, making usage clear and actionable.

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