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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's job is scoping data. 'No payment or bank details' is a genuinely useful disclosure of what is excluded from the payload. It stops short of saying what happens when the contract doesn't exist or isn't accessible.

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?

One short clause with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, and a trailing scope limit. Nothing extraneous.

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, naming the three fields returned plus the excluded sensitive data is exactly the right compensation. The remaining gap is the undocumented required parameter and no failure behavior.

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 single parameter 'contract' has zero schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. The UUID pattern implies an identifier but the description gives no guidance that it must be a contract UUID or where to obtain one.

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 ('Read one contract') plus the exact fields returned, which clearly separates it from the plural sibling fitssey_list_contracts. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, but 'one contract' vs a list tool is 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 singular scope implies 'use this when you need a single contract, not a listing,' but no alternative is named and no prerequisite is stated. An agent must infer that it needs an existing contract ID from list_contracts first.

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