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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – nothing about pagination, default ordering, or what a 'contract' record contains – so it earns only a baseline-with-annotations score.

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, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. No repetition of the title beyond what is needed to name the resource.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool does and when to reach for it. The only gap is disambiguation from sibling people/employee/invoice tools, which matters given how many Deel-adjacent siblings exist.

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%, so all three parameters (limit, company, statuses) are already documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_companies. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List contracts from the user's Deel account') and clarifies the domain (contractors/team members managed through Deel). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as deel_get_people, list_employees, or deel_get_invoices, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 second sentence gives a when-to-use trigger ('when the user asks about their Deel contracts, contractors, or team members'), which is real guidance. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives, and its overlap with deel_get_people / list_employees means an agent cannot tell from the description which of those to pick for people-vs-contract questions.

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