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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results vary by site configuration and location, which is useful context, but says nothing about result set size, pagination behavior, or permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the endpoint path and the call-count metadata, which is useful operational context. The second sentence is somewhat repetitive of the first ('available on a location-by-location basis' vs 'depending on the configurations established by the site') but nothing is seriously wasted.

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 carries some burden for describing return values, and it only vaguely characterizes the payload as contracts and autopay options. For an eight-parameter read tool it is adequate, but an agent would not know the response structure or whether pagination metadata is returned.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters including soldOnline, contractIds, and promoCode. The description contributes no additional meaning about parameter interactions or defaults, which is acceptable given full schema coverage but adds no value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get Contracts — GET /sale/contracts') and explains that it returns contracts and autopay options on a location-by-location basis. The purpose is unambiguous, but it does not distinguish itself from adjacent catalog tools such as get_memberships, get_products, or get_services.

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: the description notes the options are used to sign up clients for recurring payments, which hints at the enrollment use case. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never names the sibling tool an agent should pick instead for memberships, services, or pricing.

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