translate

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavioral traits: it's a paid operation that bills against the account by consuming the API key, and it returns a fidelity manifest that controls agent actions, requiring user review. No contradictions.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and paid nature, and adds critical usage instructions in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (fidelity manifest) and post-processing steps. It covers prerequisites, input types, and behavioral requirements. It is mostly complete, though the exact format of the manifest could be elaborated.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that source_kind can be text/markdown/url, but does not clarify how source_kind relates to the url and text parameters (e.g., which parameter to use for each source_kind). Meaning is partially added but leaves ambiguity.

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 converts a compliance document into a Liminate Agreement draft, specifying input types (text/markdown/url) and distinguishing it from siblings like draft_agreement by mentioning the use of an external API.

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 clear usage context: paid service, requires API key, and instructs to present the manifest and warn the user. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative siblings like draft_agreement.

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