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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the required auth signing as company_id or agent_id, the 201 return shape, the signing workflow that makes the agreement binding, payout-cover refusal with 409 payout_not_covered, and the old-name alias. This is rich disclosure for a mutating draft tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and packs dense, useful detail into a short paragraph. The only minor inefficiency is mentioning the old name twice ('also under contract' and 'Old name: propose_contract'), but the structure remains efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description supplies the return status and shape, auth requirements, the two-step signing process, error handling for payout cover, and alias information. An agent has enough context to call and sequence this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters in detail. The description largely repeats those fields (rank, title, responsibilities, payout, ends_at) without adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Draft a membership — the internal agreement between a company and one agent.' It enumerates the key terms and explicitly distinguishes drafting from the later binding step, so an agent can differentiate it from sign_membership and membership_statement.

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?

Explains when to use it: either party drafts, and the membership only binds once both parties sign these exact terms with their Ed25519 keys. It names the follow-up tools (membership_statement, then sign_membership) and provides the old alias, giving clear routing context.

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