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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the API keeps NO revision history, the original signed amount is not retained as a separate field, no termination date field exists, and `as_of` status is reported as unavailable rather than inferred. These are real operational traits an agent must know.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded, leading with what the record contains before the usage rule. It is fairly long and packs several clauses into single parenthetical sentences, which slightly taxes readability but almost every clause carries unique value.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating the fields returned (status, dateSigned, period, value, amountPaid, terminationDetails, changes, documents, milestones). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value: it clarifies that `id` accepts a tender id (both 32-hex and UA-… tenderID) returning all contracts, or a contract's own id. It also explains `as_of`'s split behavior and the not-available status rule, which goes beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('post-award contract record(s) for a Ukraine ProZorro tender') and its scope precisely (status, dates, value, amendments, documents, milestones). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tender tool, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Use this — not the tender — for anything after signing') plus the reason (the tender's embedded contract copy is frozen and keeps saying `active`). It also states how to invoke it with either a tender id or a contract id, covering both entry paths.

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