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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does supply operational context: required credential (party), cost (free), and the fields it exposes. It doesn't state pagination/limit behavior for the list mode or explicitly frame the read as non-mutating, but 'get'/'Lists'/'opens' carry that implication.

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?

Front-loads the user need well, but the opening intent sentence and the follow-up 'Lists your agreements, or opens one by its ID' overlap, creating mild redundancy. Four short sentences with metadata (credential, cost, source) tacked on are serviceable but not tight.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it enumerates returned fields (agents, deal, expiry, disputes), states auth and cost. It is missing only edge detail such as list-mode pagination or format of the ID.

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% for the single submissionId string, but the description compensates by explaining its effect: provide it to open one record, omit it to list all. It does not clarify the ID format or whether it is case-sensitive, leaving a gap against the low coverage.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: it lists agreements (submissions) or opens one by ID, and enumerates what it returns (agents, deal, expiry, disputes). This distinguishes it from siblings like accept_submission or withdraw_submission. However, it drifts terminology ('agreement' vs 'submission') and never names a sibling 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?

'I want to see our recorded agreement and whether it is still active' gives an explicit use-case trigger, and it clarifies both modes (list vs open-by-ID). It offers no when-not guidance and names no alternative tool for overlapping read needs.

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