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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond routing metadata — no mention of what documents are returned, pagination, or auth needs — so it contributes no behavioral context over the annotations.

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 route string is duplicated verbatim, wasting the only content present, then followed by an operation ID that adds no decision value. Short, but the duplication is pure noise rather than front-loaded usefulness.

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 nested-object tool with no output schema and 0% param coverage, an agent needs to know what documents structure to expect and how the query param filters. The description supplies none of this and defers entirely to describe_operation.

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 description gives no meaning for the two parameters. The `:id` path token loosely maps to the required id param, but the optional query object is entirely unexplained 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 is a REST route restated verbatim twice, which does convey the resource (documents for a contract by id) but is essentially a tautology of the title. It does nothing to distinguish this tool from the near-identical siblings like get_contracts_by_contractId_documents_b_c29ef566cda0732b5952b9ec and get_contracts_by_id_documents_ai_priori_6585b064b0d1e36530b1eb90.

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 vs the many sibling document tools. The only actionable hint is that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which points at a companion tool rather than describing selection conditions.

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