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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context, such as the contract being 'current' and the recommended usage timing, but it mostly describes output contents rather than deeper behavioral traits.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists the key return elements, and ends with a crisp usage instruction. There is no fluff, restatement of the tool name, or redundant warm-up.

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?

The description communicates what the tool returns and when to use it, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the optional parameters, an agent wanting to select a summary level or scope the contract to a case study or research run has no guidance.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters: caseStudyId, summaryLevel, or researchRunId. The omission is partially mitigated by self-explanatory parameter names and the summaryLevel enum, but the description provides zero direct compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a clear resource ('current MCP research contract'), then enumerates what it contains: binding, evidence maturity, allowed/blocked tools, and platform handoff. This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like ata_get_evidence_maturity or ata_get_research_plan.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use after context loss or before expensive tools.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the provided context is clear and actionable for a read-only retrieval tool.

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