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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that this tool does NOT execute demos or control a PC. It adds behavioral context about the return type (contract) and usage, but does not describe all behaviors like error handling or rate limits.

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?

The description is extremely concise with four focused sentences. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, negation of execution, usage guidance, and a warning. No unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage order, and output interpretation. It lacks explicit error handling or edge cases, but the output schema likely fills remaining gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the demo_id parameter as coming from demos.list, and implicitly linking format to user interaction style (shell vs chat-only). This goes beyond just repeating schema info.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'showcase run contract' with details (install, command, needs, framing). It explicitly distinguishes itself by stating what it does NOT do (execute or control a PC), ensuring no confusion with sibling tools.

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 provides clear guidance on when to call this tool ('after demos.list when you know the demo_id') and how to use its output (offer command if shell, show card if chat-only). It also warns against misuse, but does not explicitly list alternative tools for different scenarios.

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