scan_clause

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cost and service, which is useful, but lacks critical details like permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only or mutation operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. The additional cost and service details are relevant but could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity while maintaining clarity.

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 complexity of contract analysis, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits details on response structure, error handling, and practical usage scenarios, making it inadequate for informed tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no information about 'clause_text' or 'jurisdiction' beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, examples, or meaning of 'general' default). This fails to address the coverage gap, leaving parameters poorly understood.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Analyse') and resource ('a single contract clause'), specifying the outcome ('for risk and get a suggested revision'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_contract' by focusing on individual clauses rather than entire contracts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions cost and service but doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Without this, users might misuse it or overlook better-suited tools like 'scan_contract' for broader analysis.

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