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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add real value by naming the returned field subset and explicitly excluding private notes and payment details. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result size limits, which matter given page/count parameters.

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 with the returned-field summary front-loaded and the exclusion clause second. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a simple paginated list tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks any guidance on paging, page size, or sort behavior, and there is no note on what to do when the result set is large. The returned-field and exclusion notes partially compensate.

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 0% for four parameters (page, count, sortDir, sortField), and the description mentions none of them. With no documentation anywhere for pagination or sorting, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 contract catalog") and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows this lists contracts rather than fetching one. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling fitssey_get_contract, so the list-vs-single distinction rests on the name alone.

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?

Listing semantics imply 'use when you need to enumerate contracts', but nothing states when to prefer this over fitssey_get_contract or fitssey_get_pricing_option. No prerequisites or exclusions are given beyond the data-scope note.

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