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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing a security-relevant trait ('Does not return API keys or passwords') and mapping the tool to a REST endpoint, but it never states that this is a safe read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination, result limits, or permission requirements.

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 sentences with the resource identified first and the security caveat second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and what is deliberately excluded, which is the core need. It remains thin on return shape and pagination, leaving gaps an agent would have to discover empirically.

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 100% and both parameters (intentId, organisationId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as how organisationsID interacts with the default signed-in organisation.

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?

States a specific resource ('Carrier contracts the company can ship with'), which is concrete enough to separate it from sibling list tools like ListBrands, ListSenders, or ListShippingMethods. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The 'same data as GET /api/Contracts' note implies it is the read path for contracts, but the agent is left to infer the trigger conditions on its own.

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