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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the path — no pagination, filtering, or result-shape context — so it does not enrich what annotations provide.

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 path is repeated verbatim in two consecutive sentences, and an opaque operation ID is included that adds no selection value. Nearly the whole text is redundant or noise rather than front-loaded guidance.

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?

A nested-object, 0%-coverage, GET endpoint with no output schema needs the description to explain the query object and return payload. Neither is addressed; the only useful pointer is the deferred reference to describe_operation, which offloads the actual specification.

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% and two parameters (a free-form 'query' object and 'params.contractId') have no descriptions anywhere. The path string only implicitly names contractId; the 'query' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess accepted filter keys.

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 raw path 'GET /api/accounting/contracts/:contractId/modifications' does encode a verb and resource, and the 'modifications' suffix distinguishes it from the many sibling get_accounting_contracts_by_contractId__* endpoints. But the tool name itself ends in a hash, so the only disambiguation comes from the URL string, never restated in plain language as 'list contract modifications'.

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 statement of when to call this versus the sibling /modifications endpoints or versus find_contracts. The only procedural hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points at another tool but does not describe conditions for use.

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