generate_contract_support_package

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint true) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that output is a generated document (Markdown + PDF), which is consistent with read-only. No contradictory information, and the behavioral traits are adequately disclosed beyond 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?

Description is very concise: two sentences (English and Japanese) that pack essential information. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main output.

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 complexity of 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, inputs required, and output format. It covers the key aspects but could mention that the output is a downloadable file or how to access the PDF. Still, it's sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke.

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 each parameter has a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters sufficiently.

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 clearly states it generates a contract support package with specific components: risk matrix, price negotiation anchors, recommended clauses. It specifies data source (neighborhood/property data) and output format (Markdown + branded PDF). This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools that assess individual 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?

Description implies when to use: when a comprehensive contract support package is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context of siblings (assess_contract_risk, assess_property_risk) suggests this tool aggregates outputs. A clearer differentiation would improve this dimension.

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