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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of whether results are scoped to the settle currency, whether all delivery contracts are returned at once, or any pagination/rate-limit behavior for an open-world endpoint.

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 four-word sentence with zero waste, but this is brevity through omission rather than front-loading useful information. There is nothing before or after it to prioritize.

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 one-parameter, fully-described read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally sufficient. It falls short on explaining how the settle filter scopes results and how this differs from the single-contract sibling, which matters given the dense family of near-identical list tools.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents settle as the required settlement currency. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it neither clarifies nor contradicts; baseline 3 applies when the schema 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?

"List delivery contracts" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (delivery contracts), so the surface action is clear. But it offers no differentiation from the many sibling list tools (cex_fx_list_fx_contracts, cex_options_list_options_contracts) or from its closest sibling cex_dc_get_dc_contract, which returns a single contract. The agent must infer the list-vs-get distinction from names alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this or cex_dc_get_dc_contract when it wants contract metadata, nor what the required settle currency implies about the result set.

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