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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the max 31-day window and substring matching behavior, but omits read-only status, return format, pagination, and rate-limit/auth details beyond what the schema says about access_token.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. 'PRO.' is terse, and the operational details are delivered immediately.

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 3-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the core filtering behavior is understandable. However, it lacks return-value context, default behavior for days, and sibling-tool routing, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 low at 33%, but the description compensates well by explaining that days means the last N days with a maximum of 31 and that buyer performs a substring match. access_token is covered by the schema description, though a default for days is still unspecified.

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 states a specific operation: retrieve contracts in the last N days matching a buyer name substring. It clearly identifies the resource and filters, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools contract_search and recent_contracts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. The max-31-day window and buyer substring imply a recent buyer-monitoring use case, but the agent must infer that without routing guidance.

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