analyze_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It describes the analysis but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (non-destructive), what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. The description is minimal beyond the functional output.

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-loaded with a bracketed tag, and delivers all necessary information without fluff. Every sentence provides value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 (analysis) and absence of output schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete in describing functionality. However, it lacks an explicit description of the return value format or structure, which would be important for an agent to interpret results 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the overall analysis (clause-by-clause) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The parameter descriptions in the schema are clear and self-sufficient.

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 performs clause-by-clause legal risk analysis on contracts/terms/agreements, with automatic type classification, risk clause identification, and legal search hints. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('document'), and the focus on contracts differentiates it from sibling tools that analyze specific regulations or perform searches.

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 implies usage for analyzing contract text but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_alio_regulation or analyze_regulation_delegation. While the target documents are clear (contracts/terms/agreements), no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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