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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine domain caveat about CSA fee fields depending on `standard_version`, but says nothing about not-found/error behavior or auth requirements, keeping it at a moderate level.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by a targeted caveat. No filler, and the pointer to server instructions is bounded rather than vague.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description still names the main content areas. The CSA fee caveat defers to external server instructions, which is a small gap in self-containedness, but the definition is otherwise sufficient for a single-parameter read.

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 reported at 0% (the `id` description is minimal), and the nested pathParams structure is not explained. The description corroborates that the key is a UUID, adding marginal clarity but no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema's pattern.

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 ('Get agreement details by UUID') and enumerates what is returned (parties, terms, status), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list-agreements, get-agreement-history, and download-agreement-pdf. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the verb (fetch one agreement by id), and it adds a domain hint about checking `standard_version` for CSA fees, but it never states when to prefer this over get-agreement-history or download-agreement-pdf, nor any preconditions such as the agreement existing or permissions needed.

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