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

The description states 'no signature' and 'TEST MONEY ONLY: mock ledger, test tokens (tUSDC), no real funds,' which are behavioral details not present in annotations. It also discloses the output structure (valid, acceptable, per-check class, linter rejections, contract_hash), adding value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint that only indicate safety. The annotations already cover non-destructiveness, so the description's extra context on the test environment and return format earns a 4.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action, endpoint, and return values; the second delivers the critical test-only warning. Both pieces of information are essential and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has a single parameter, a clear return description, and annotations that cover safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. The nested object structure of 'contract' is left to the schema, which is acceptable because the schema describes it. The test-only caveat is critical and present. No essential information for calling the tool correctly is missing, though it could have explicitly mentioned that it does not require a signature as a distinguishing feature.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'contract' ('Job contract JSON'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further explanation about the contract structure, required fields, or validation constraints beyond what the schema already states. It reinforces that the contract is the subject of the check but provides no new semantic detail.

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-resource pair ('Check a job contract') and a clear purpose ('for gradability before posting'), and it names the exact endpoint (POST /v1/speccheck). It also enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_job or contract_template. The 'TEST MONEY ONLY' note further clarifies scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'before posting' gives a clear temporal context for when to invoke this tool, implying it should be used as a pre-check prior to post_job. The test-only warning adds an environmental constraint. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use it, leaving the comparative guidance implicit.

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