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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It partially does by indicating it's an overview/read operation, but it does not state permissions, data scope limitations, or response format. Since it's not explicitly readonly and no safety annotations exist, the disclosure is insufficient.

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 a single sentence front-loaded with the primary purpose, containing no fluff. It efficiently conveys the essential information in ~12 words.

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?

Despite the tool being relatively simple, the description does not mention that entity_id is optional (no required parameters), nor does it describe output format or any limitations. This ambiguity is significant for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 documents entity_id with a description, providing 100% coverage. The description adds only 'per entity' which aligns with the parameter but does not clarify whether the parameter is required or how it affects results given that no parameters are marked required.

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 'Shows' and identifies the resource 'analyzed contracts per entity', clearly distinguishing it from sibling status tools like article_status or bus_status. It also specifies the data fields (clause gaps, review status, document versions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or more suitable sibling tools for related queries, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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