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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by mentioning the deterministic result receipt, the absence of external browsing/model inference, and the price. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 extremely concise: one sentence states the core functionality and constraints, and a second sentence provides the price. Every word contributes meaning, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description gives a high-level overview but lacks essential details about the contract format, the structure of the result receipt (no output schema exists), and the optional 'decisionFingerprint' parameter. Given the absence of schema descriptions and output schema, these gaps leave the tool incompletely specified for an agent.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It implicitly covers 'result' and 'contract' through the main action, but it completely omits 'decisionFingerprint' and does not explain the structure of the contract object. This leaves the agent with insufficient understanding of two of the three parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource ('supplied JSON against an explicit acceptance contract') while stating the output ('deterministic result receipt'). It also distinguishes the tool by explicitly noting it operates 'without external browsing or model inference,' which differentiates it from sibling tools that may rely on those mechanisms.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (checking JSON against a contract) and adds practical details like the cost. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of the highest level of guidance.

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