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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the required scope, which is useful auth context beyond the annotations. It does not, however, describe side effects, what happens to related records, or any rate limits, so it adds moderate value but remains thin.

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 no waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the permission note. Every sentence earns its place in this compact definition.

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 simple create operation with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and the required scope, but omits the upload-first workflow context (which the schema mentions only for file_path) and any explanation of how this tool relates to create_upload_url. An agent can call it correctly from the schema, but the description does not enrich the overall context.

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 six parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the note that file_path comes from an upload URL response. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a contract document record.' This clearly identifies the operation, and the agent can distinguish it from siblings like create_contract or create_project_document by resource alone. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar document-creation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite: 'Requires contract_documents:write scope.' There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_contract_document, bulk_create, or create_upload_url. An agent gets the permission requirement but no routing logic or context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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