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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description's framing ("Find...") reads like a harmless lookup and discloses none of the write/destructive character. It is also silent on the required consentExternalProcessing authorization for sending contract data to an external inference provider and on the paymentInvoiceId path — both material preconditions for calling it.

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?

One sentence, verb-first, with the outputs front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined concision for a tool this complex.

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?

With six parameters, a nested inputs object, a hard consent const, a payment path, destructive semantics, and no output schema, one sentence cannot cover what the agent needs. Nothing tells the caller what it gets back (findings? a ranked renewal table?) or what the side effects are.

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 coverage is 67%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself (lookaheadDays, currentDate, contractIndex formats, idempotencyKey pattern). The description only tangentially adds meaning by saying the contracts are ones "you supply," loosely pointing at inputs.contractIndex, 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?

Uses a specific verb ("Find") with three concrete outputs — upcoming renewals, notice deadlines, price changes — over a stated scope ("the contracts you supply"). That is well beyond a tautology. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings such as procurement_workflow__renewal_to_negotiation, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only usable signal is the phrase "contracts you supply," which implicitly tells the agent it must bring its own contract data, but nothing routes the agent between this and the renewal/negotiation siblings.

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