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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement and the read-only nature implied by 'Retrieve', but says nothing about what happens when the token is invalid, whether unpublished versions are visible, or what 'metadata' actually contains. For a token-gated tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the precondition. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing detail scored above.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters mean the description needed to do much more work. It leaves the agent without enough to choose among the contract_* siblings or to know how version and operationId affect the result.

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 four parameters, and the description only alludes to accessToken. It never explains that contractId is a fixed-length identifier, whether omitting 'version' returns the latest published version, or what operationId is for. The coverage gap is not compensated.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('metadata and a published schema version for a private data contract'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like contract_history or contract_compare, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires its access token'; there is no statement of when to prefer this over contract_history, contract_validate, or contract_compare. An agent gets a precondition but no selection criteria or exclusions.

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