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 by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond the path and an operation ID; it does not say whether results are paginated, filtered by workspace, or scoped in any way.

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 description is short but wastes half its length on an exact duplicate of the first sentence. The path is front-loaded, which is good, but the repeated sentence 'GET /api/templates/contracts.' earns nothing.

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, no documented parameters, and a free-form query object, the description should explain at minimum what resource collection is returned and how filtering works. Instead it supplies only a path echo and a redirect to describe_operation, leaving the agent without enough to call this 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?

Both parameters (a free-form 'query' object and an empty 'params' object) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate at all. The single useful pointer is that describe_operation exposes native request schemas, which at least tells an agent where to look for the real parameter contract.

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 a restatement of the HTTP path, duplicated verbatim, and adds no explanation of what a 'contracts template' is or what the call returns. The title already carries the path, so the description is effectively tautological. Only the operation ID differentiates it from nothing an agent couldn't already infer.

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 siblings like get_templates_documents, get_form_agreement_templates, or find_contracts. The only routing hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points at how to learn the request shape, not at when to select this tool.

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