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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the credit/refund model and dry-run behavior, but it does not mention side effects, data modifications, permissions, or failure modes beyond the generic refund statement.

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 description is brief and mostly free of redundant detail. However, the opening phrase 'One HumanMirror tool for measurable deterministic outcomes' is vague filler, though it does not significantly bloat the text.

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 no output schema and no sibling context, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain what a successful response looks like, how contract_id is used beyond being returned by a dry run, or how criteria and objective interact. The outcome_type list helps but the overall execution model remains underspecified.

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 complete, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful enum list for outcome_type and an example for objective, but most parameter descriptions are generic and add little beyond the schema itself.

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 does not state a concrete operation or resource; 'One HumanMirror tool for measurable deterministic outcomes' is generic and fails to explain what the tool actually does. It mentions executing and verifying but never names the specific task or domain.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling tools are listed. The only usage hint is the dry_run option for a free quote, but there is no explanation of appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.

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