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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Compare ... and report" implies a non-mutating read, which is useful, but it says nothing about the accessToken requirement, whether the caller needs workspace ownership of a private contract, what happens if a version is missing, or any rate/permission constraints. For a 5-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the use case following. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence could carry more operational detail instead of purely motivational framing.

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 does compensate somewhat for the absent output schema by enumerating the three result categories. But with no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and an undisclosed accessToken requirement, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this reliably on first try.

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% across five parameters, and the description only obliquely implies that fromVersion/toVersion are version numbers. contractId, accessToken, and especially operationId receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, so the agent must guess at format, idempotency semantics, and auth expectations.

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 and resource ("Compare two immutable versions of a private data contract") and even names the output shape (added, removed, changed schema paths). It is clearly distinct from contract_create/publish/validate siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from json_diff, which sounds functionally adjacent.

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 second sentence gives a real usage context: reviewing upstream API contract changes before publishing or upgrading an agent. However, it offers no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., when to prefer json_diff or contract_get instead).

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