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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns the plan/contract 'with its terms' and that it is trainer-scoped, but 'Read only' largely repeats the annotation and there is no additional detail on errors, permissions, or return shape.

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 two short sentences with no filler and the object of the tool is front-loaded. 'Read only' is redundant with annotations, but overall the text is tightly sized for a simple single-resource read tool.

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 low-complexity read with one fully documented parameter and rich read-only annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. However, because there is no output schema, the description does not explain what contract 'terms' include, nor does it describe not-found behavior or return structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single required contractId parameter is already documented as coming from list_contracts. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a single trainer plan/contract with its terms, using the singular 'One of' to distinguish it from a list. However, it does not explicitly name the retrieval verb or contrast with siblings like list_contracts or get_contracts_overview.

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: the singular framing and the schema note 'Id from list_contracts' suggest retrieving a specific contract after listing. The description itself gives no explicit when-to-use statement, alternatives, or exclusions.

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