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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no return shape, no pagination, no auth or scoping notes — and repeats the same path sentence twice.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting the reader's attention, and the operation-ID sentence carries no meaning for tool selection. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the raw path.

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 two undocumented parameters, a nested free-form query object, and no output schema, the description should explain what the endpoint returns and what query keys are accepted. Instead it defers entirely to describe_operation, leaving the agent unable to invoke it meaningfully without a second call.

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% and the schema exposes only a free-form 'query' object and an empty 'params' object with additionalProperties rules. The description provides zero information about filtering, pagination, or supported query keys, which is the exact gap that needed filling.

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 already present in the title ('GET /api/standard-clauses' twice) and gives an operation ID. It implies a list endpoint for standard clauses but names no verb, scope, or result content, and does not distinguish it from siblings such as get_standard_clauses_by_id_1494be76578086d1e4520500.

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?

The only actionable hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' which redirects elsewhere rather than saying when to call this tool versus the by-id, audit, or clause-related siblings. There is no when/when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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