generate_contract_support_package

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

Annotations indicate read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description aligns by stating it generates a package, which is a computed output that does not modify external state. It adds context about using neighborhood/property data and output format (Markdown + PDF).

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, plus a Japanese translation. No unnecessary words or repetition that doesn't add value.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the output components and format. However, it does not specify how the output is delivered (e.g., file path, URL), leaving a minor gap.

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% with all 7 parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 generates a contract support package including risk matrix, price negotiation anchors, and recommended clauses. The verb 'generate' and specific deliverables distinguish it from sibling tools like assess_contract_risk or assess_property_risk, which focus on assessment rather than package creation.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as assess_contract_risk. It implies usage for generating comprehensive support but lacks guidance on when to choose this over related sibling tools.

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