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. The description adds only the operation ID and a pointer to describe_operation for native request schemas, which is a small but real piece of context beyond the annotations. No return behavior or pagination is described.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the duplicated identical sentence wastes half the text and the remainder is metadata rather than useful information. Brevity here reflects under-specification more than tight writing.

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 should explain the shape of returned notices, pagination, and filtering via query; it explains none of these. For a nested-object request with 0% schema coverage, the definition is not sufficient to call the tool confidently.

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% for 2 parameters, so the description is responsible for compensating and it does not. The path string at least implies the required id is a contract identifier, but the free-form query object is completely 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 restates the HTTP path twice ("GET /api/contracts/:id/notices. GET /api/contracts/:id/notices."), which is effectively a tautology of the name and title. An agent can infer this lists notices for a contract, but nothing is said about what a notice is, scope, or how it differs from the sibling get_contracts_by_id_notices_by_noticeId_... tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_notices_eb8326fe048fba69ff1fd44e (all notices) or the per-notice sibling. The only routing hint is the pointer to describe_operation for request schemas, which is about schema discovery, not tool selection.

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