Create a service agreement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the output is a template skeleton for lawyer review, explicitly states it is not legal advice, and mentions the free tier limit of 3 agreements per month. It does not detail file overwrite behavior, but the schema already covers that through the overwrite parameter.

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?

Three concise sentences with a clear front-loaded action, followed by return value note, legal disclaimer, and usage limit. Every sentence contributes information without repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers the key non-schema information an agent needs: what is produced, what is returned, the legal nature of the output, and a usage restriction. Since there is no output schema, the minimal return-value disclosure is helpful, though it could be more explicit about error cases or quota enforcement details.

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 89%, so the input schema already documents most parameters in detail. The description adds little beyond mentioning that the fee and file path are returned, which does not directly clarify parameter semantics. It neither compensates for undocumented parameters nor adds meaningful input guidance beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('produce') and resource ('freelance service agreement .docx'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like contract_assemble or proposal_create, but the type of document is specific enough to guide selection.

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?

It gives a direct imperative ('Call this tool to produce...'), which clearly indicates the intended use case. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, and with siblings like contract_assemble nearby, the lack of routing guidance leaves some ambiguity.

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