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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of not-found behavior, permissions, or lookup semantics — so it contributes essentially nothing new.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the identifying parameter ('by id') appears immediately. Nothing in the sentence is redundant with the name or title.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple UUID-keyed get, it is nearly sufficient, though it omits any note about missing-record behavior.

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%, with both project_id and interface_contract_id documented as UUIDs in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get an interface contract by id'), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/list/patch siblings in the same family. It does not explicitly name or contrast against those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like interface_contracts_list or interface_contracts_get_many-style alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the word 'Get' and the required id parameter.

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