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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination, default limits, filtering behavior, or what the response contains, which matters for a list endpoint.

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?

Brief, but the same sentence is duplicated verbatim, so the small amount of text still contains waste. The useful pointer (describe_operation) is buried behind a repetition of the endpoint string.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter list tool with an undocumented free-form query object and no output schema, the description should at least say what is returned and how filtering works. Delegating everything to describe_operation leaves the definition incomplete on its own.

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 0% and the two parameters (query, params) are opaque untyped objects. The description does not explain what query accepts or that params is empty — it merely defers to describe_operation, leaving an agent unable to construct a call from this definition alone.

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 is essentially the raw endpoint string 'GET /api/contracts' repeated twice, which restates the name and title rather than explaining what the tool returns or how it differs from the many contract-related siblings like find_contracts, get_contracts_by_id, or get_contracts_stats_overview.

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 use this list endpoint versus find_contracts, get_contracts_tags_search, or the per-contract getters. The only operator-facing pointer is to describe_operation for schemas, which is about invocation mechanics, not tool selection.

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