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

'Read-only' simply restates readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, adding nothing beyond annotations. The description says nothing about pagination, result size, whether an empty result is normal, or what a 'contract' object contains, and the openWorldHint=true warning about external data reach is left unelaborated.

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?

Two short fragments with no padding, but they are under-specified rather than concise; the second fragment duplicates annotation data and occupies space that could have carried real guidance.

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, an unexplained free-form nested parameter, and zero schema coverage, the description needed to explain the return shape and the 'extra' object but does neither. It is far too thin for a tool whose only structured documentation is a two-field schema.

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 carries the full burden and fails: account_id (the sole required uuid) is never explained, and the free-form 'extra' object with additionalProperties {} is completely undocumented in both schema and description. Only the resource domain hints at what account_id scopes to.

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 names the resource domain ('Recruiter or Sales Navigator contracts'), which does distinguish it from siblings like list_hiring_projects or list_job_postings, but it never states the action or scope itself -- that only comes from the title. 'Read-only' is a trait, not a purpose statement, so the fragment leaves the operation implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative tool for related contract-adjacent data. An agent must infer from the name alone that this lists contracts for a given account.

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