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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the upstream endpoint (GET /contract) and the shape of returned records, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume beyond what the schema already states.

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 short sentences with the resource and payload described first. The API endpoint line is mildly redundant for an agent but earns its place as a cross-reference to ServiceTrade documentation.

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?

A simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint; no output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (customer, location, review date, active state) usefully covers the return shape. Only the lack of guidance about when to prefer this over record-specific getters keeps it from a 5.

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 all six parameters (name, page, limit, active, customerId, locationId) are fully documented with defaults and bounds in the schema itself. The description's mention of customer, location, and active state mirrors those fields without adding syntax or behavioral nuance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List service contracts and agreements') and enumerates what each record carries (customer, location, review date, active state). The resource makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like servicetrade_list_jobs or servicetrade_list_quotes, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as the get_* tools for retrieving a single record, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the filterable schema.

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