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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the tool 'Optionally uploads the artifacts for you with a session wallet' and mentions 'upload_with_wallet_handle' for uploading now. Uploading artifacts is a side-effecting write, which directly contradicts the read-only annotation. The description does add valuable transparency about TEST MONEY ONLY and mock ledgers, but the contradiction overrides that positive contribution.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds category distinctions, artifact requirements, optional wallet behavior, and a test-funds warning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the return type, category semantics, required upload artifacts, optional wallet-based upload behavior, and test-only nature. It is nearly complete, but the contradiction between the read-only annotation and optional upload behavior leaves an important gap in the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the category enum values in behavioral terms, clarifying that include_artifact_bytes is relevant for self-upload, and warning that upload_with_wallet_handle is TEST ONLY. This goes beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a valid example job contract for a supported category so you can adapt it.' It clearly names the two supported categories and explains what each means, making it easy to distinguish this template-generation tool from the signing, posting, and uploading siblings.

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: you call this to get an adaptable contract, and it says the artifacts must be uploaded first and that a wallet handle enables immediate upload. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like afg_sign_contract, afg_post_job, or afg_prepare_signed_request, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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