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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of what the profile payload covers, auth requirements, or pagination.

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 same endpoint path is repeated in two consecutive sentences with zero added information, wasting half the text. The only unique content — the operation ID and the `describe_operation` pointer — is buried at the end.

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 output schema and 0% schema coverage on a two-parameter tool, the description should explain the returned profile shape and the meaning of `contractId`; it does neither. The `describe_operation` reference partially mitigates the missing request schema, but overall the definition is inadequate for correct selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: `contractId` is never explained (format, source, whether it is the internal ID vs. contract number), and the free-form `query` object is not mentioned at all. The path template is the only implicit hint about the required 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 only restates the title/endpoint path verbatim, twice, without explaining what a contract 'profile' contains or how it differs from the several sibling endpoints with the same `/accounting/contracts/by_contractId/...` shape. The HTTP verb and resource path are recoverable, but the semantic purpose is not stated.

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 call this versus the numerous sibling contract sub-resource endpoints (e.g. the other `get_accounting_contracts_by_contractId__*` tools). The only actionable pointer is that `describe_operation` holds the native request schema, which is a schema-lookup hint, not a usage rule.

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