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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the deprecation timeline and the fact that it will stop working on a specific date, which is critical behavioral context beyond annotations. It also mentions it must use UUIDs from search_apis, which is a dependency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, deprecation notice, and examples. It is slightly longer than necessary but every part earns its place: the deprecation notice is critical, and the examples are helpful. The front-loading is good, with the main purpose stated first.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (one parameter, output schema present, annotations provided), the description is quite complete. It covers the purpose, usage, deprecation, and provides examples. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the output format, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. The deprecation notice adds important context for the agent's decision-making.

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 description coverage is 100% (the 'request' parameter is described as containing operation_uuids). The description adds example UUIDs and clarifies the format, but the schema already provides the key semantics. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get the full execution contract for a specific operation, including inputs, outputs, and authentication requirements. It specifies the resource (operation contract) and the action (load), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it must use operation UUIDs from search_apis.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool (to get execution contract for an operation) and provides a deprecation notice with clear alternatives (Jentic One's jentic inspect/execute flow). It also gives example operation UUIDs to illustrate usage, which is excellent guidance.

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