document_summary

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it states the deliverable is 'structure and citations only' and explicitly discloses that it deliberately omits legal opinion, risk rating, and recommendation. It could go further on failure behavior or exact return format, but for a read-only summarization tool it gives the critical behavioral boundaries.

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?

Two dense sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, a compact list of output elements, and a final sentence that earns its place by preventing misuse. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what the tool produces, what fields are included, and what it intentionally withholds. It is slightly incomplete on exact output format/citation shape and on how to choose it against the sibling tools, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, and the path parameter is already well described in the schema (accepted formats, absolute paths, content-based detection). The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate — the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Build a structured skeleton of the contract') and enumerates the concrete output fields: parties/signatories, term/renewal, obligations with bound party, and clause anchors. It also clearly differentiates from the sibling extractor tools by framing it as a holistic model-facing summary rather than a single extraction, and explicitly excludes legal opinion/risk rating/recommendation.

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?

It provides a clear usage context — when the model needs a structured skeleton of the whole contract to reason over — and it tells the agent what it will not get (legal opinion, risk rating, recommendation). However, it never names the sibling alternatives (extract_parties, find_clauses, etc.) or states explicitly when the lower-level extractors should be preferred, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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