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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral note that it 'creates no answer or permission', preempting a wrong assumption that reading the contract starts work. It does not describe size or cost of the contract payload, but nothing is contradicted.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then devoted entirely to disambiguation, with no filler. Each clause earns its place by routing the agent to the right sibling.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes and 'output shapes' content need not be explained in prose. For a zero-required-param, read-only contract fetch, the description covers purpose, timing and alternatives fully.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the pattern and the 'omit if sole' fallback. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema already does the work.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus a specific resource (the answer contract) and enumeration of what it contains: question limits, output shapes, learning options. It explicitly distinguishes itself from swarm_get_answer, swarm_get_work_contract and swarm_get_operation_contract, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives both the when ('before an answer request') and the when-not, naming each alternative sibling and the condition that selects it. Nothing about the choice between the four get_* contract/result tools is left to inference.

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