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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing about response shape, pagination, or what the amortization schedule covers, so it earns little beyond the structured fields.

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 URL sentence is repeated verbatim, which is pure waste, and the remaining text is an internal operation ID. Nothing is front-loaded as a human-readable purpose statement.

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, no annotation gaps to fill, and 0% parameter documentation, the description would need to explain the endpoint's semantics and the undeclared query parameter. It does neither, leaving an agent to consult describe_operation for anything beyond the URL.

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% for two parameters (required contractId, optional free-form query). The description only echoes ':contractId' from the path and never explains the query object or the contractId's expected form, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 repeated URL line does convey a verb (GET) and resource (amortization schedule for a contract), so the intent is inferable. But it is a bare endpoint path with no plain-language explanation of what an amortization schedule response contains, and the duplication adds nothing.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling contract sub-resource endpoints or execute_read. The only routing hint is a pointer to describe_operation for request schemas, which is about schema discovery, not tool selection.

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