Draft export-control contract clause

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well by explaining that riskLevel materially changes the output and listing what each tier adds (e.g., 'high' adds conditions precedent, FDP/de minimis acknowledgement). It stops short of describing the response format or any limitations, but the behavioral core is disclosed.

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?

One dense sentence carries all the essential information and front-loads the purpose before the riskLevel detail. The riskLevel enumeration is long but tightly packed; it could be more scannable with bullets, but no sentence is wasted.

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 moderate complexity (five parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core invocation choices: language, riskLevel, and the output-changing behavior. The undocumented booleans and missing return-shape note are minor gaps because the parameter names and the drafting purpose make them inferable.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains riskLevel and partially covers language ('Korean or English'), but it says nothing about includeIndemnity or includeAuditRight, leaving those booleans to be inferred from their names and defaults.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Draft') and a precise resource ('Korean or English export-control and sanctions risk-allocation clauses'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as classify_eccn or build_due_diligence_checklist, which perform analysis or checklist creation rather than contract drafting.

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 makes the use case clear: drafting risk-allocation clauses, with language and riskLevel choices. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to route an agent away from the analysis/checklist siblings.

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