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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, carrying most of the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful context with 'draft', signaling the record is not finalized and implying a follow-up finalization step. It does not state permission requirements, reversibility, side effects, or the response shape, which is a moderate gap for a destructive mutation.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It is compact and readable. It earns its place but offers no structural aids like a when-to-use clause.

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 rich annotations and high schema coverage, the definition is adequate: an agent knows it creates a draft mutation and what parameters to supply. However, no output schema exists, and the description does not explain what a 'draft' means operationally or what the caller gets back, leaving a gap for a create 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 80%, so project_id, contractor_id, agreement_number, and date are already documented in the schema. The description does not elaborate on any parameter, such as the format of agreement_number or the draft's default status, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb (creates) with a specific resource (draft sub-contract) and adds scope (with a subcontractor on a project). The 'draft' qualifier is a meaningful distinction. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_sub_contract, list_sub_contracts, or update tools, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. does the contractor need to exist as a contact first?), and no mention of alternatives like get_sub_contract or list_sub_contracts. The usage is only inferable from the name and verb.

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