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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral fact not in the annotations — that the contract grants no source authority or resale rights — but says nothing about what is returned or whether the contract may be absent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The rights disclaimer is tacked on with a semicolon but still earns its place as substantive 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 zero-arg, read-only tool the description is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema it should say more about what the 'contract' contains or in what form it is returned. The rights caveat is useful context but leaves the return value opaque.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless operation.

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 verb 'Discover' plus the resource 'signed opt-in event contract' gives a rough sense of the operation, but what 'discover' actually returns (fetch the contract? check opt-in status?) is left ambiguous. There is no attempt to distinguish this from siblings like wake_dataset_policy or wake_economy_now.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that might be the better choice. An agent has to infer the calling context entirely.

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