List the built-in clause library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the return shape (title plus body text), the variable-substitution behavior with an agreement, and the free-tier limitation (titles and summaries only). It stops short of a 5 because it omits details such as error behavior or what happens without an agreement.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the action and resource, then cover optional-parameter behavior and tier restrictions without wasted words. The enumerated example clauses are useful context, not padding.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns and the fields involved. It covers variable substitution and tier limits well. It could be slightly more explicit about the default behavior when no agreement is passed, but the optional-parameter phrasing and free-tier note make this reasonably inferable.

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?

The single 'agreement' parameter already has a schema description that says 'Fill each clause body with this agreement's variables. Pro feature.' The tool description essentially restates this, adding no new semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a concrete resource ('built-in clause library') and enumerates its contents, including the clause categories and the title/body structure. This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling agreement_* and license_* tools, which operate on agreement or license records rather than the static clause catalog.

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 gives clear context for using the tool: pass an agreement to fill clause bodies with that agreement's variables, and notes the Pro/free tier difference. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the intended usage is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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