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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description does not mention expected response structure, whether the contract must exist, or any error conditions.

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 short sentence, which is concise but essentially restates the tool name. It is not a full tautology because 'dc' is expanded to 'delivery contract', but it provides minimal information and could be considered under-specified.

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 could have explained the return value or purpose in context (e.g., retrieval of a single contract details). It does not, and it also lacks guidance on how to discover valid contract identifiers, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, clearly explaining 'contract' and 'settle'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the action 'Get' and the resource 'delivery contract', clearly indicating a single-contract retrieval. It is distinct from sibling list tools like cex_dc_list_dc_contracts, though it does not explicitly state that it returns details for one contract.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for retrieving a specific delivery contract by ID, nor compare it to list_dc_contracts or other get tools.

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