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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that and says nothing about volume, pagination, or result ordering, but it does not conflict with the annotations either.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or repetition of 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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it omits output shape, ordering, and whether large result sets are paged or auto-aggregated, and gives no routing guidance among the many sibling list tools.

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 all four parameters (page, per_page, search, contract_id) are documented in the schema itself, including the automatic all-page fetching behaviour. The description only echoes contract_id filtering, adding no format or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 (List) and resource (documents attached to contracts), which clearly separates it from the singular get_contract_document and the mutation siblings (create/update/delete_contract_document). It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the list/get/create/delete naming pattern makes the distinction obvious.

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 usage hint is 'Filter by contract_id', which is a parameter note rather than guidance on when to use this tool. It never says whether contract_id is required in practice, what happens when it is omitted, or when to prefer list_contract_sites or get_contract_document instead.

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