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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful context that access is public and self-service, and reinforces that no request is created. No contradiction with annotations, but the description does not disclose much beyond the annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. Each clause carries some signal, though the noun-phrase style makes it read more like a label than a full sentence.

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 input schema and no output schema, the description is the only source for what the call returns. It suggests that the tool exposes supported fields, but it never states what the contract contains or what the response shape is. It is adequate for a safe, zero-argument call but leaves interpretation underspecified.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default and the description has no parameter burden to carry. Mentioning 'supported fields' is consistent with what a caller would look for in a contract-access tool.

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 name supplies the action 'get' and the resource 'charter_intake_contract', and the description distinguishes it from creating a request. However, the description itself is mostly a set of attributes ('Public contract, self-service access and supported fields') rather than an explicit statement of what the tool does or returns.

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 phrase 'Does not create a request' provides a clear when-not relative to create_charter_request, and 'self-service access' implies use when an agent needs the contract or supported fields. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_request_status or validate_trip_brief instead.

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