Generate a contract

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

Annotations leave behavioral hints ambiguous (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), but the description adds context: drafts are stamped for review, not legal advice, and optional save writes to media gallery. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded main action. Efficient, but could benefit from structured sections (e.g., parameters, behavior).

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?

Covers main purpose, optional features, and draft disclaimer. Missing details on output format (though 'return draft markdown' is stated), error handling, permissions, and required fields. Adequate but with gaps.

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 only 40%. The description adds meaning for 'company' (auto-fills customer_name) and 'save' (writes to media gallery), but does not explain 'template' enum values, 'project', or 'vars' beyond what the schema provides. Insufficient compensation for low coverage.

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 action: fill a standard contract template with given fields and return a draft markdown. It mentions optional auto-fill from CRM and saving to media gallery, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_company_agreement or list_contract_templates.

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?

Provides some context (auto-fill from CRM, save option, drafts for review) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as updating an existing agreement or listing templates.

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