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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the exact response envelope { count, next_skip, items }, the paging contract, and the underlying GET /contracts endpoint.

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?

Telegraphic but zero waste — fields, the document-blocks pointer, return shape, paging, id mode, filtering, and endpoint, all front-loaded in five compact sentences. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden well by spelling out the return envelope and the pagination loop. The only residual gap is what an item's field values look like, which it partly offloads to plutio_get_document_blocks rather than explaining.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description still adds operational meaning: next_skip maps to skip for the following page, id switches the call into single-record read mode, and it clarifies the split between exact-match filters and MongoDB-style query. It does not add syntax detail beyond the schema's own examples.

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 and enumerates the fields a contract carries (name, client, status, signatures), plus it separates the document-text concern by pointing to plutio_get_document_blocks. That is enough to tell it apart from plutio_list_invoices or plutio_list_proposals, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those sibling 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?

It gives concrete usage modes: pass id to read a single record, use exact-match filters or a MongoDB-style query to narrow, and feed next_skip back as skip to page. It stops short of saying when to prefer query over filters or when not to use this tool at all.

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