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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Reads only' repeats the read-only hint but adds no further behavioral context such as authentication needs, error behavior, or ambiguity handling.

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?

The description is one tight, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first, then uses a colon-separated list to define what 'in full' includes. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned content: parties, scope, deliverables, payment terms, dates, termination, liability cap, jurisdiction, clauses, status, and status history. It is sufficient for a simple one-parameter read tool, though it does not cover edge cases like not-found or ambiguous client names.

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 already describes the single parameter well, including the SA-2026-0003 example and the client-name caveat, so schema coverage is 100%. The description echoes 'by SA number or client name' but does not add meaningful detail beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('one service agreement in full'), and the lookup methods (SA number or client name). It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like agreement_list or agreement_render, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving a single complete agreement when you have an SA number or client name. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as agreement_list or agreement_render, nor does it give any exclusions.

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