analyze_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions outputs (classification, risk identification, hints) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or behavior with large texts.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the purpose and lists key features. No redundant words; every phrase adds 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?

The description mentions three output types (classification, risk clauses, law hints), which is helpful given no output schema. However, it lacks details on output structure, error handling, or any prerequisites. Still, it provides a reasonable overview.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema (e.g., 'text' is the full text, 'maxClauses' defaults to 15). No further elaboration on format or constraints.

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 performs clause-by-clause legal risk analysis on contract/terms/agreement text, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze regulations or other documents. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like analyze_alio_regulation.

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 implies usage for analyzing contracts or agreements, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., for regulations use analyze_alio_regulation). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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