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 fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on what is returned, error behavior for a missing ID, or permissions required — so it contributes almost nothing 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 tool is short, but the first sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste, and the remaining sentence is a pointer plus an opaque operation ID. Front-loading exists but the content is filler rather than substance.

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, 0% parameter description coverage, and a nested query object, the agent needs the description to explain the contract record's shape and the ID format — neither is present. The only completeness the definition offers is the annotation-level read-only guarantee.

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 carries the burden, yet it never explains what 'id' identifies (contract ID format, UUID vs slug) or what the free-form 'query' object accepts. The path fragment ':id' is the only hint, which the schema's 'params.id' already implies.

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 endpoint restated twice, mirroring the name and title verbatim. 'GET /api/contracts/:id' does hint at retrieving a contract by ID, but it never says what a contract record contains or distinguishes this from the many sibling sub-resource tools like get_contracts_by_id_documents or get_contracts_by_id_audit_logs.

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 when-to-use guidance beyond the implicit 'this is a GET'. The only routing hint is that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which points to a helper rather than telling the agent when to pick this tool over find_contracts or the sub-resource getters.

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