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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one non-obvious behavioral fact — the response carries no organization data or secrets — which is useful. It stops short of saying what the contract actually contains or how invalid modules behave.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the preflight timing is front-loaded. It is efficient to the point of under-specification, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be documented. Still, for a tool whose only input is a required four-way enum, the description supplies zero help in picking a module or understanding what each module's contract governs, leaving a real gap in an otherwise simple tool.

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%, so the description bears the burden and fails: the required 'module' parameter is never mentioned, nor are the four enum values (settings, document_styles, policy_layout, roles) or how choosing among them changes the result. The enum constrains inputs but the description gives no semantic guidance.

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 verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'configuration contract' gesture at the intent, and the title confirms it returns a schema. But 'configuration contract' is jargon that never resolves into which configuration (settings? roles? policy layout?) the schema covers, and nothing distinguishes it from near-identical siblings like get_schema, get_app_schema, and get_tool_contract.

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?

'Before editing' implies a preflight use case, which is genuine guidance. However, no alternative is named among the several other schema/contract tools in the sibling list, so an agent cannot tell when to prefer this one over get_schema or get_app_schema.

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