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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the contract's intended use (diagnosing degradation and testing bounded repairs), but it does not describe the return format or any behavioral nuances beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, appropriately sized sentence with no wasted words. However, the key scoping information ('feature-only contract') is jargon-heavy rather than front-loaded with clear, actionable detail.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond the safety profile, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns and how it fits into the repair workflow. It only vaguely gestures at a 'feature-only contract' without clarifying its contents, structure, or relation to sibling tools like get_input_schema or preflight_repair.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. Per the rubric, a parameterless tool receives a baseline of 4 because there are no parameter semantics to explain.

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 states a verb ('Get') and a resource ('feature-only contract'), but the term 'feature-only contract' is jargon that doesn't clarify what the schema actually contains. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_input_schema or explain how the repair schema differs from other schema-like tools.

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?

It gives a vague purpose ('diagnosing degradation and testing bounded repairs') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_input_schema, preflight_repair, or quote_repair. No prerequisites, exclusions, or call-order hints are given.

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