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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'Return' the contract. It does not describe how the six optional filter parameters affect the result, whether this is purely read-only, or what the returned proof contract contains beyond its label.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundant restatement of the tool name. It is concise, though the conciseness comes at the expense of param and usage guidance.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool with six optional filters and no annotations. It does not explain what each filter selects, whether any filter is needed, or how this pack differs from the nearby secure-context recipe siblings.

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 0% description coverage for six parameters, and the description adds no meaning to status, gate_id, risk_id, claim_id, event_id, or metric_id. The parameter names are somewhat suggestive but the agent still has no guidance on how to combine or populate them.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('customer proof contract for design partner and acquisition evidence'), so an agent can tell this is a read-oriented recipe. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as recipes_secure_context_evidence_contract or recipes_secure_context_buyer_diligence_brief.

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?

The phrase 'for design partner and acquisition evidence' gives an implied use context, but the description never states when to prefer this pack over sibling packs and gives no exclusions or alternatives. An agent must infer the selection logic from the tool name and context.

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