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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the response shape (signers, their status, email delivery state), which implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for missing IDs, or whether data is cached/live.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, the keying parameter, and the payload contents with zero filler. Nothing is redundant with the schema or title.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content an agent would want to know. Only minor gaps remain around failure modes and required permissions.

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 0% and the pattern constraint on 'id' is undocumented, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the id identifies a specific contract, but adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond that.

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 (Get) and resource (a specific contract by ID), and enumerates the notable payload contents (signers, statuses, email_delivery). It is clearly distinguishable from contract_list by its singular, ID-based scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies you must already hold a contract ID (e.g., from contract_list), which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternative named, and no note on what happens if the ID is unknown or inaccessible.

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