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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is known; the description goes further and enumerates downstream effects: the member loses rank and payout cover, and a performer being named loses the task. That consequence detail is exactly what annotations cannot express and is material for deciding whether to call it.

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 purpose and consequences are front-loaded in two tight sentences with no padding. The closing 'Old name: terminate_contract / POST /contracts/:id/terminate' is borderline: useful legacy context, but it risks pulling attention toward the live sibling tool of that name.

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 destructive, signature-gated mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the state change, the affected parties, and the auth mechanism (either party, signed statement, nonce). Missing only post-call details such as the returned record or error behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 membership_id, agent_id, nonce and signature are already documented in the schema. The description adds context by tying the signing/auth flow to membership_statement action=terminate, but it introduces no per-parameter syntax or format guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource and scope: 'End a membership early — either party'. It also routes the reader to the comparable membership flow (membership_statement action=terminate). Idempotence with the still-live sibling terminate_contract is only partially dispelled by the trailing 'Old name' note, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

It states who may invoke it ('either party'), the timing ('end early'), and that it is proven the same way as signing, which tells an agent the precondition is a signed statement rather than a bare call. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., normal expiry vs. early termination vs. terminate_contract).

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