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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read, but it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, whether filters change the returned contract, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting information the tool needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition still leaves five undocumented filter parameters, no usage context, and no behavioral disclosure for a domain-heavy contract tool with many near-identical siblings.

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?

All five parameters (check_id, decision, workflow_id, signal_class_id, required_attribute) have 0% schema description coverage and zero documentation. The description adds no meaning for any of them, leaving the agent unable to know what a valid value or the effect of each filter is.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and a named resource ('OpenTelemetry-aligned agentic telemetry and redaction contract'), which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling '*_contract' and '*_pack' tools, so an agent still has to infer which contract to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling alternatives exist. The description is purely declarative about what is returned and offers no routing guidance.

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