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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Return the ... contract' implies a read-only retrieval but does not disclose whether the contract is static or dynamically generated, what the returned content contains, whether any side effects occur, or what response shape to expect.

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 short and front-loaded, which is positive, but it is more under-specified than appropriately concise. It conveys the basic return value in one sentence but omits enough context that the brevity does not fully serve the agent.

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 tool with 5 undocumented optional parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling family, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter meaning, output specifics, or selection criteria, leaving critical information for the agent to guess.

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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description names none of them. The parameters check_id, decision, workflow_id, signal_class_id, and required_attribute remain entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot know how to set them or what they filter.

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 states a clear action (Return) and a specific resource (OpenTelemetry-aligned agentic telemetry and redaction contract), which conveys the tool's core purpose. However, it does little to differentiate this from the many sibling 'recipes_*' contract/pack tools, some of which also return contracts.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling recipe tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The 5 optional parameters suggest some context-specific selection, but the description does not explain when or why to invoke this tool.

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