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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as error behavior, authentication needs, or pagination/return details.

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. It states the core operation directly and wastes no words.

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 read-one tool with rich annotations and a fully described schema, this is minimally adequate. However, it lacks routing guidance against the many sibling tools and does not indicate what the returned document contains, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a UUID with a clear description. The description adds only the redundant phrase 'by ID', so 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('contract document'), cardinality ('a single'), and lookup key ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from create/update/delete siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from list_contract_documents or explain its relationship to create_contract_document.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_contract_documents or other retrieval tools. The phrase 'by ID' weakly implies that a known ID is required, but no alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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