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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits the schema cannot: only validation metadata is stored (not customer payloads) and retention is capped at the latest 100 events per contract. It omits auth requirements despite a mandatory accessToken, event ordering, and whether results are paginated or truncated at the retention boundary.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the storage/retention caveat following. Every clause adds information an agent could act on.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover more ground than it does: it never describes the shape of a returned event ('failure evidence' is undefined) or the authentication expectations implied by the required accessToken. The retention and privacy disclosures partially compensate, making it adequate but incomplete for a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The retention note indirectly explains why 'limit' caps at 100, but contractId, accessToken, and especially operationId (which appears to filter to a single operation) are given no meaning anywhere in the description or schema.

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 ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('recent validation decisions and failure evidence for a private contract'), which clearly separates it from a fetch-a-contract tool or a run-validation tool. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'validation decisions and failure evidence' — an agent can guess this is an audit/history lookup, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over contract_get, contract_validate, or monitor_history. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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