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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required OAuth scope, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not say what is destroyed (file vs. association) or whether children are cascaded.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the permission prerequisite second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 one-parameter delete with no output schema and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the scope, which is the main missing piece in structured data; only cascade/effect-on-related-records detail is absent.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the format/pattern for the UUID is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no semantics beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a contract document') with an identifying mechanism ('by ID'). This clearly separates it from delete_contract, delete_contract_site, and update_contract_document without needing the schema.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires contract_documents:write scope') but no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as update_contract_document for modification or delete_contract for the parent contract. Usage is implied by the name and prerequisite rather than explained.

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