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

Annotations already declare write behavior, non-idempotence, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds important context beyond those annotations: the operation creates a DRAFT, requires an ACCEPTED offer, populates fields from the proposal, and does not send anything. It does not explain what destructive aspect the annotation is warning about, but there is no clear contradiction.

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 two focused sentences, front-loaded with the write operation and its key precondition, then immediately names the alternative send action. There is no wasted prose.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the main creation flow, precondition, and send-vs-draft distinction. However, it leaves the optional note, expire_date, and title-override semantics unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 description must carry parameter meaning. It explains proposal_id/proposal_uuid as the accepted-offer source, but it does not clarify note, expire_date, or how the optional title parameter interacts with the title apparently copied from the offer.

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 states a specific verb and resource: prepare a customer contract as a DRAFT from an ACCEPTED offer. It also distinguishes the operation from sending by naming send_customer_contract, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly gives the condition for use: the offer must be ACCEPTED, and non-ACCEPTED offers are refused. It also names the alternative action when the goal is to send: use send_customer_contract.

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