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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the output is machine-readable and that each claim carries evidence and a verification status, but it says nothing about auth requirements, caching, failure behavior for unknown hosts, or the read-only nature of the call (only implied by "Get").

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?

One sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. The long parenthetical inventory of contract contents is dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what the payload covers; it could be tightened but is not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does list the claim categories plus the evidence and verification-status structure. It stops short of stating the serialization format or error behavior, but is adequate for a one-parameter read 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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter already documents its format with examples ("moltbook or www.moltbook.com"). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the 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?

Specific verb ("Get") plus a precise resource ("machine-readable surface contract for a platform host") and an enumerated field list that makes clear what the contract contains. The singular-host scope implicitly separates it from list_surface_contracts, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need the contract details for a specific host id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over verify_surface or list_surface_contracts, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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