assess_contract_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a risk score and deal-breakers, which is consistent but does not provide additional behavioral insights such as authorization needs, data usage, or response size. Given the annotations, the description adds some value but not extensively.

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 with two sentences, one in English and one in Japanese. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. There is no extraneous information. However, the Japanese translation is redundant but not harmful. It could be slightly more structured, but it meets conciseness standards.

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?

Considering the tool has no output schema, the description explains what is returned (risk score and deal-breakers). The parameters are mostly covered by schema descriptions. The tool has nested objects, but the description gives a sufficient high-level overview. It does not specify output format, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description mentions 'proposed clauses' which aligns with the proposedTerms parameter, but it does not explain the location parameters (ward, chochou). However, the schema provides descriptions for those. The description adds marginal context for proposedTerms but does not fully compensate for the lack of detail on how location affects risk assessment. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyze proposed contract clauses and return a risk score with deal-breakers. It mentions specific clause types like financing contingency, inspection, and future value terms. This differentiates it from sibling tools like assess_property_risk or audit_zoning_compliance, which focus on different aspects.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for when it is appropriate to use or when to avoid it. No mention of prerequisites or limitations, making it less helpful for decision-making among siblings.

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