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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing on top: no indication that the response is a binary PDF stream, whether generation is synchronous or job-based, latency, or size limits — all material for a document-generation endpoint.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste, and the operation-ID sentence is boilerplate pointing at a sibling tool rather than describing this one.

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 and the description does not say what comes back (PDF bytes, a presigned URL, a JSON envelope), nor does it explain the nested query object. For a PDF-generating endpoint with zero schema documentation, the definition leaves the agent unable to call it 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 must compensate and does not. The only hint about `id` is the `:id` path token, and the `query` object is never addressed at all — an agent cannot tell which query options (template, locale, options) might be accepted.

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 just the endpoint path echoed twice ("GET /api/contracts/:id/summary-pdf") plus an operation ID. It nominally names a resource and verb, but adds no semantic content beyond the title — nothing about what the summary PDF contains, whether it is generated on demand, its format, or how it differs from sibling summary-PDF tools like get_leases_by_id_summary_pdf. This is tautology-level distinctiveness.

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 whatsoever about when to call this instead of get_contracts_by_id, get_leases_by_id_summary_pdf, or describe_operation. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned anywhere in the text.

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