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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral content is the enumeration of contract states (proposed/active/expired/terminated), which is genuinely useful domain context but not operational detail like pagination or result limits.

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 compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (resource, filter axes, lifecycle states) carries information.

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 simple two-optional-parameter list tool this is close to adequate, and annotations plus schema cover most of the burden. It still leaves open whether calling with zero arguments is valid (list all?) and how results are bounded or ordered, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 both parameters are already documented as filters, and the description merely restates the same two axes. The status list adds a little meaning about what values exist in the domain, but nothing about formats or combined-filter behavior. 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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('agent⇄company contracts') and scopes it further with the two filter axes and the contract lifecycle states. It is unambiguous against siblings like propose_contract or terminate_contract, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from any alternative.

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?

'by company_id or agent_id' implies the two filtering modes, so usage is inferable. But there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus inspecting contracts through get_agent or get_team, and no guidance on what happens when neither filter is supplied.

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