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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only a static content inventory and says nothing about whether the payload is static or live, its size, or any auth/precondition requirements for reading 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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but it is a grammatically incomplete fragment with no verb, which weakens front-loading. Adding a leading verb would cost nothing and make the purpose immediate.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears responsibility for describing the return value, and it does partially by naming the categories returned plus 'the JSON Schema of every request and response'. It still omits how to use that output (e.g., to construct recta_prepare_signed_request calls) and whether the descriptor is versioned or cached.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters with an empty closed schema, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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 is a noun phrase listing contents (corridors, providers, amount ranges, limits, JSON Schemas) rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never explicitly says it 'returns' or 'describes' the service. The content list does differentiate it from siblings like recta_prepare_signed_request and recta_send_signed_request, but the title 'Commercial contract' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus recta_about or recta_status, and no indication that it should be consulted before preparing a request. An agent must infer the discovery-first workflow entirely on its own.

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