Review contract portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds valuable context by specifying the output format (cards with risk score, classification, exact clause text, recommended action) and that it renders a widget, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes only necessary details. There is no redundant repetition of schema or annotations, and every clause adds value.

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 must explain the return value, and it does so thoroughly (card contents and filter behavior). The tool is simple (one optional parameter), and the description covers the essential behavior, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 filter parameter is fully documented in the schema (enum and description), and the description reinforces its meaning by listing the filter options ('safe', 'danger', 'needs_attention') and noting the default behavior ('all'). This adds interpretive light beyond the raw schema.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and resource 'contract board', and enumerates the exact card contents (risk score, classification, clause text, recommended action). This distinguishes it from sibling tools (set, ingest, run) which are clearly different actions.

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 context for when to use the tool (to review the contract portfolio) and mentions optional filtering, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling tool names make the distinction obvious, so this is a minor gap.

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