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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns some credit for disclosing a returned-field relationship: contracts lacking a recurrence carry a `create_recurrence` payload that can be used to schedule repetition. It says nothing about scoping, result volume, or whether the result is per-agent only.

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 sentences with no padding and the primary behavior front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly awkward to parse ('carries create_recurrence, the recurrence create call that repeats it'), which costs a little clarity but not length.

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 single-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is listed but omits the meaning of the required `agent_key` and any indication of result shape or size. Adequate, with clear gaps.

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 0% and the single parameter `agent_key` is never named or explained in the description. 'This requester's' only loosely implies that the key identifies the caller, leaving format and scope requirements undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — listing the requester's accepted saved contracts — and adds the non-obvious detail that a bounty balance is returned alongside. It is distinguishable from siblings like `recurrence` or `contract_recovery`, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as `contract_recovery`, `contract_rerun`, or `recurrence`, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the usage context from the tool name alone.

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