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

With only readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful details about what is returned (parties, pathways, bundles, checklists, version/source counts) and what is excluded (signatories as people). However, it doesn't clarify pagination, size limits, or authentication needs. The added return-shape context is valuable but incomplete.

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 verbose and buried in dense, clause-heavy sentences. The core purpose is stated first but then followed by multiple paragraphs of edge-case metadata explanations. It is not front-loaded for quick scanning; an agent must parse several complex conditions.

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?

The description attempts to cover return content and edge cases, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it omits basic operational details like response size, pagination, or how to handle missing entities. For a read tool with one parameter and no output schema, it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% and there's only one parameter (agreement_id). The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states it returns a single agreement with its related entities (parties, pathways, comparability bundles, checklists). It is distinguishable from siblings like find_agreements (list) and get_institution (different resource), though the phrasing is somewhat tangled with extended metadata caveats.

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 implies you need an agreement_id from find_agreements, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus find_agreements or get_program. The mention that 'forms themselves come from the one-record get, never from a list' hints at a usage rule but is not framed as guidance.

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