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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavioural detail about what is copied (reused-every-run attachments plus an opt-in list) and that prior spec/checks/price are snapshotted, but it is silent on the required idempotency_key and its retry semantics — a notable omission given idempotentHint=false — and on whether posting spends money immediately.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the attachment exception attached immediately after. Minor waste: the second sentence repeats what the carry_attachment_ids schema description already says.

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?

This is a mutating, potentially money-spending, non-idempotent operation with no output schema and only 40% parameter coverage. The description does not say what is returned (e.g. a new run id), what errors or preconditions apply, or how idempotency_key should be used on retries — leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 only 40%: funding_rail and carry_attachment_ids are documented in the schema, while bounty_id, agent_key and the required idempotency_key are not. The description's attachment sentence largely restates the carry_attachment_ids schema text rather than adding meaning, and it says nothing about the undocumented required parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

A specific verb and resource: 'Post a new run of an accepted saved contract' plus what is carried over (latest accepted spec, checks, price). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbours such as procurement_contract_run or contract_recovery, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'accepted saved contract', which hints at a prerequisite but never states it as a condition ('use only when the contract is accepted and has an accepted spec'). There is no when-not guidance, no mention of retry/duplicate handling, and no named alternative sibling.

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