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 behavioral beyond a duplicated path and an Operation ID; it does not say what the response looks like or whether the id must be a contract UUID.

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 wastes its entire first half on a verbatim duplicate of the same route string, so no sentence is front-loaded with useful information. Length is not the problem; zero informational yield from the repeated sentence is.

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% schema description coverage, a nested 'query' object, and dozens of near-identical sibling contract endpoints, the definition needs to explain the resource and its parameters. It instead delegates entirely to describe_operation, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly from this definition alone.

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 compensate, and it only partially does: the literal ':id' in the path signals that the required 'id' parameter identifies a contract. The free-form 'query' object parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameter surface 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 is the raw route duplicated verbatim ('GET /api/contracts/:id/field-date-relationships' twice), which restates the tool name rather than explaining what a 'field date relationship' is or what the call returns. An agent can infer it reads date-relationship metadata for one contract, but nothing distinguishes its payload from siblings like get_leases_by_id_field_date_relationshi_* or get_contracts_by_id_cc84e70b4cf1492de2196bc0.

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 versus alternatives; the only guidance is the procedural pointer that 'describe_operation provides native request schemas'. That tells the agent how to learn the schema, not when this endpoint is the right choice over the many sibling contract sub-resource getters.

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