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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful prerequisites (the contract must be open and owned by the caller), but says nothing about whether the operation mutates state, whether it is reversible, what 'units' are consumed, or what the response contains.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is far too small for a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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?

Given the 3 required parameters, zero annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It lacks parameter meaning, mutation semantics, and return-value context, providing only a bare ownership/state hint.

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?

All three parameters are required and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain 'units' or 'observed_post_mc' at all, leaving an agent unable to interpret two of the three inputs beyond their names.

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 gives a verb ('Exercise') and a resource ('contract'), plus a precondition ('open ... you own'). However, 'exercise' is domain jargon and the sentence does not explain what exercising actually does or how it differs from siblings like capacity_quote or capacity_issue.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the other capacity_* siblings, nor any when-not conditions. 'Open contract you own' is a prerequisite, not a selection rule.

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