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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination auto-fetch behavior, result limits, or ordering, so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 core action is front-loaded before the filter hint. It is efficient, though borderline sparse given four parameters and pagination semantics that go unmentioned.

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 a fully covered schema and complete annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate to invoke correctly. The only gap is that it never surfaces the automatic multi-page fetching behavior that the schema hints at, which an agent might otherwise plan around.

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%, with every parameter (page, per_page, search, contract_id) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats contract_id filtering and adds no syntax, format, or default-value meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource (list documents attached to contracts) that is unambiguous against the create/get/delete/update contract_document siblings. However it does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_contracts or explain why one would list documents vs fetch a contract's attachment metadata.

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 phrase 'Filter by contract_id' implies the primary use case (retrieve documents for a known contract), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as get_contract_document for a single item, and no guidance on whether contract_id is required in practice even though the schema marks zero required params.

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