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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description contributes the auth scope requirement, but says nothing about duplicate handling (non-idempotent behavior), required relationships like company_id being a vendor ID, or failure modes.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the precondition. It is efficient, though extremely terse and could carry slightly more weight without bloat.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not explain what the return looks like or how a created contract relates to siblings like create_contract_document; the rich schema description coverage compensates for the parameter gap.

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%, so all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level meaning, format details, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Create a new contract" states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinct from siblings like create_asset or create_work_order by resource name. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent tools such as create_contract_document or create_contract_site, which the agent must infer from names alone.

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 description adds a precondition ("Requires contracts:write scope"), which is genuinely useful routing/authorization context. But it offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as bulk_create for multiple contracts.

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