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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals important behavioral details: RLS scoping, a hard limit of 200, and pagination semantics with has_more/next_cursor and the instruction not to count a page while has_more is true. This significantly helps the agent handle pagination correctly and understand access boundaries.

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 two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers critical pagination guidance without redundancy.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only list operation with an output schema and safety annotations. However, the complete lack of semantic guidance for status, deal_id, and project_id filters leaves gaps in an agent's ability to construct precise queries or know whether filters are exact-match or combinable.

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 only 50%: limit, cursor, and offset have schema descriptions, but status, deal_id, and project_id lack any description in both schema and tool description. The description only repeats the limit cap and discusses response pagination fields, not the filter parameters, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 specific verb and resource ('List contracts') and adds the RLS-scoped qualifier, making it clear this is a read operation on contracts. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_contacts or contracts_create/update, but the resource name is distinct enough.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contracts_create or contracts_update, nor does it mention exclusion conditions or preferred alternatives. The context of being a list operation is implied, but no explicit routing or comparison with siblings is offered.

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