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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'live', implying the document is generated fresh at request time rather than being a static snapshot — a small but genuine behavioral detail, though it says nothing about cost, latency, or versioning.

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 or repetition. It is efficient rather than verbose, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being maximally informative.

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 the description need not explain return values, and with no parameters the schema burden is minimal. However, it still leaves the agent without any indication of what the returned contract is used for or when it is the right call, which is a meaningful gap for a zero-arg tool whose only value is its result.

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 according to the rubric this is a baseline 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain and the description does not need to compensate for anything here.

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 has a verb and object ('Return the live agent OpenAPI document'), which is better than tautology, but 'agent OpenAPI document' is opaque relative to the tool name 'get_formation_contract' — an agent cannot easily tell what artifact it will receive or how it relates to formation. Siblings (prepare_application, get_application_status, etc.) are distinct topics, but the description does nothing to position itself among them.

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 rather than the other six sibling tools, and no stated prerequisites or context. The agent must infer that this is a contract/spec retrieval step, likely feeding other tools, with nothing explicit to confirm that.

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