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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing about the read itself — no note on what custom sections contain, whether results are paginated, or what an empty set means.

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?

It is short, but the first sentence is wastefully duplicated and the raw operation ID (0e9daa415d5d11c7d4ac5905) consumes space without informing selection. Front-loading is fine, but the content itself is largely non-informative filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the burden of describing the return value — yet it says nothing about what a 'custom section' object looks like, its shape, or ordering. For a nested-object, query-parameterized endpoint this leaves the agent materially under-informed.

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% across 2 parameters. The path template hints that 'id' is a contract identifier, but the free-form 'query' object parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess at supported filters.

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 the HTTP route repeated twice verbatim, which is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('get_contracts_by_id_custom_sections') and title. An agent can infer it fetches custom sections for a contract, but nothing distinguishes it from close siblings such as get_contracts_by_id_custom_fields_value or get_leases_by_id_custom_sections.

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 use this tool, when to prefer a sibling, or what preconditions (e.g., a valid contract id) apply. The only routing-adjacent sentence points at describe_operation for schemas, which is meta-information rather than usage guidance.

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