assess_contract_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's statement of 'analyze' and 'return' is consistent but adds no new behavioral insights. It does not disclose what happens with the location inputs, processing details, or any side effects beyond the annotations.

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 concise (two sentences, bilingual), but the Japanese version is a near repetition. It is front-loaded with the key action, but could be more structured or focused. Every sentence earns its place, but bilingual redundancy slightly reduces efficiency.

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 lack of output schema, the description briefly mentions return values (risk score, deal-breakers), which is adequate. However, it fails to explain the role of location parameters (ward, chochou) or differentiate from similar sibling tools. The tool's context is incomplete for an AI agent.

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 100% (all parameters have Japanese descriptions). The description adds meaning for proposedTerms by listing example clause types, but it does not explain the purpose of ward or chochou parameters. Since baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, this is appropriate.

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 states it analyzes proposed clauses (e.g., financing contingency) and returns a risk score with deal-breakers. This is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like assess_property_risk, and the inclusion of location parameters (ward, chochou) is not explained, causing slight ambiguity.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives or context for using this tool over other assessment tools (e.g., assess_property_risk). Usage is only implied from the tool name.

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