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

The description frames the tool as returning data ('a compiled contract and its settlement ids') and being free, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. An agent reading both gets directly conflicting signals about whether this call mutates or destroys state, and the description supplies no auth, side-effect, or cost context of its own to resolve it.

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?

Six words is concise and the resource is front-loaded, but the 'FREE:' prefix is unexplained and the sentence omits information the agent actually needs. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 values need not be explained, but for a required-id lookup with zero schema coverage the description should still cover parameter origin, safe usage, and its odd destructive annotation. None of that is present.

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 0%, so the single required contract_id is undocumented. The description could have said where the id comes from (e.g., output of compile_contract) or its format, but it does not mention the parameter at all.

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 names the resource (a compiled contract plus its settlement ids) but uses a bare noun phrase with no verb and no explicit differentiation from siblings such as compile_contract or settle_contract, which the agent must infer from the name 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?

The only usage signal is the 'FREE:' prefix, which hints that calls are not metered. There is no statement of when to call this versus compile_contract (which presumably produces the contract) or settle_contract, and no prerequisite such as already having compiled the contract.

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