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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is light. It adds useful context on the returned payload (totals, dates, notice period, status, lifecycle stage) but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or ordering defaults, which matter for a 9-param cursor-paginated list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb+resource first, definition and returned fields next, use case last, with the endpoint as a trailing tag. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does describe what the list yields; cursor parameters for pagination are schema-documented. The gap is that paging/limit behavior is never mentioned in prose, which slightly weakens the picture for a list endpoint with 9 optional params.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description echoes the status and lifecycle-stage dimensions but adds no format or syntax detail (e.g. how 'totals' relates to filters) beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (contracts), then defines the resource in plain terms ('agreements for plans and resources') and enumerates the data each entry carries. No sibling tool covers contracts, so this is trivially distinguishable from the other list_* tools.

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 example 'find contracts up for renewal or serving notice' gives concrete use contexts and maps directly to the stage enum values. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but the intent is unambiguous.

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