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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint path, such as pagination, rate limits, audit-log ordering, or what data is returned.

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 text is short but poorly structured: it repeats the same endpoint sentence twice and includes an internal operation ID that adds no actionable value for an agent. The repetition wastes the limited space.

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 tool has no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and no explanation of return values or query options. Referring agents to `describe_operation` for schemas is helpful but does not make this definition complete enough 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implies that `id` is a contract identifier via the path template; the optional `query` parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 repeats the endpoint path and operation ID, which is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name and title. It does not explain in natural language what an audit log retrieval entails or how it differs from sibling audit-log tools.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as `find_contracts`, `get_contracts_by_id_*`, or `describe_operation`. The only directional hint is that `describe_operation` provides native request schemas, which is about schema discovery rather than usage selection.

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