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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond noting describe_operation exposes native schemas — no aggregation window, filters, or result shape is disclosed.

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 same endpoint string appears twice with no additional information, which is pure noise rather than front-loaded clarity. The one useful sentence (operation ID / describe_operation pointer) is buried after the duplication.

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 stats-overview endpoint with an empty, fully-open query object, 0% schema description, and no output schema, the description should explain what the overview aggregates and how to scope it. Nothing an agent needs to call it meaningfully is present.

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 both parameters (query, params) are undocumented; the description merely defers to describe_operation rather than explaining what goes in 'query' or confirming 'params' is empty. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 only the raw endpoint path repeated verbatim twice, plus an operation ID. It implies a read of contract statistics but never says in plain language what statistics are returned or what the overview covers, so it largely restates the name/title.

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 versus siblings such as get_contracts_5151ceaf, get_leases_stats_overview, or get_contracts_critical_date_matrix. The only routing hint is a pointer to describe_operation for request schemas, which is about format, not when to choose this tool.

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