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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, rate limits, filtering behavior, or what happens with optional parameters.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is too sparse for a tool with six filtering parameters. Brevity alone does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the input side is critically underspecified: six parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. With no annotations and a dense sibling toolset, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema has six optional parameters (status, gate_id, risk_id, claim_id, event_id, metric_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The agent gets no meaning for how these IDs or status should be used.

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 (Return) and names a resource (customer proof contract), but the resource is jargon-heavy and undefined. It does not distinguish this tool from many sibling secure-context/evidence/contract tools such as recipes_secure_context_evidence_contract or recipes_design_partner_pilot_pack.

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?

It mentions design partner and acquisition evidence, which gives an implied context, but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent would have to guess whether this is the right pack among dozens of similar recipes_* tools.

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