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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'from the register' as source context and says nothing about lookup failures, missing records, or payload size, so it contributes little beyond the structured metadata.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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 no output schema and no explanation of what fields the returned record contains, the description leaves the agent guessing about the response shape. For a data-retrieval tool, that is a meaningful gap, even though parameters are well covered by the schema.

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 the schema already explains that id comes from assay_search and that country is a lowercase two-letter code listed by assay_countries. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

The description identifies the resource ('one contract or award record') and its source ('the register'), and the singular phrasing implies single-record retrieval. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not differentiate from siblings such as assay_line_contracts, assay_supplier_contracts, or assay_search, which all touch contract records.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite stated (e.g., that the id comes from a prior search), and no alternatives named. The id parameter's schema hints at a dependency on assay_search, but the description itself offers nothing.

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