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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely useful behavior: SSN, date of birth, and bank details are stripped from the response. This redaction disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. Auth requirements and error behavior remain unstated, so 4 not 5.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the returned fields and then the redaction caveat, with no filler. The trailing endpoint path (GET /v1/Users/contractors/{contractorId}) is mildly redundant with the tool name but provides useful provenance.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned sections and explicitly flagging which sensitive fields are omitted. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single documented integer id, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 names the resource precisely ('One contractor') and enumerates the payload (profile, jobs, checks paid, work status, benefit settings, custom fields), so an agent can tell this is a single-record retrieval rather than a mutation like bilflo_update_contractor. It stops short of an explicit verb and never names a sibling to contrast with, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

'One contractor' implies fetching a single record by id, and the required contractor_id confirms that shape. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to an alternative sibling for related needs.

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