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

The readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false annotations already define the safety profile. The description adds useful return-field information (id, customer name, status, end_date), but it omits pagination, sorting, or combined-filter behavior that would give richer behavioral context.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, and the return fields are given immediately after. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It compensates for the absent output schema by listing returned fields, though it does not mention default limits or result ordering.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's 'optionally expiring soon' lightly maps to expiring_within_days but adds no syntax, defaults, or format details 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('service contracts'), making its scope clear against most sibling tools. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other find_* or list_* siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'optionally expiring soon', which signals a valid filtering use case. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_customers or find_invoices, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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