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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It does so usefully: the contract must be 'owned' (an access-scoping constraint) and the read returns immutable decisions and an approval hash/version, which signals audit-grade content rather than a mutable view.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the object of the read and the reuse timing are stated up front. The phrasing is dense enough ('exact decisions', 'approval hash/version') that it borders on cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials but leaves gaps: how the returned hash/version should be used for verification, and how a contract_id is discovered. Adequate rather than complete.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies the id refers to an owned contract but says nothing about id format or where to obtain one, leaving the parameter only partially explained.

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 names a specific verb (Read) and resource (an owned quality contract) and states what is retrieved: exact decisions plus approval hash/version. That distinguishes it from sibling listers and drafters, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives it supersedes.

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?

'before reuse' implies the timing condition for calling it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., list_quality_contracts for discovering an id, or get_quality_baseline for baseline data). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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