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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds lifecycle state-transition behavior and the API-key/auth requirement, but the odd phrase 'It reaches no one, so it runs without asking first' is confusing rather than clarifying and there is no mention of what side effects or validation failures to expect.

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 lifecycle idea is stated twice ('It starts as a lead until a proposal is saved' vs 'The job starts as a lead and moves to bidding when save_proposal runs'), which is redundant, and the 'It reaches no one' sentence is garbled. Front-loading of the create action is fine, but the text wastes space on repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle starting state, the contract_style vocabulary, and the auth requirement, which is enough to call it correctly. However, it omits what comes back from the call and any constraints on the required client_id, so the picture is only partially complete.

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%, so all 5 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only repeats the contract_style enum values (fixed_price or cost_plus) that the schema already carries, adding no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource ('Creates a contract job for a client') and names the contract_style values, so an agent knows what this produces. It does not distinguish itself from sibling creation tools like knowify_create_invoice or knowify_add_change_order, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives real workflow context: the job starts as a lead and moves to bidding when save_proposal runs, which tells the agent how this tool fits before/after siblings. It stops short of explicit 'use this when X instead of Y' routing, but the sequencing against save_proposal is genuinely useful.

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