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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the payload contains (weeks, witnesses, updates, proofs), which effectively substitutes for the absent output schema, though it says nothing about access permissions or result size.

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 with a colon-delimited enumeration; there is no filler and the resource is named before the payload details. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition covers purpose and returned content adequately; no output schema exists, so the field list is doing useful work. Only access/prerequisite context is missing, a minor gap for a read operation.

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?

There is exactly one required parameter, 'id', and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, range, or source guidance for the contract ID, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Voir') and resource ('un contrat d'engagement') and even enumerates the sections it exposes (semaines, témoins, mises à jour, preuves). It does not explicitly contrast itself with contract-related siblings such as dandori_contract_progress, so an agent must infer that this is the read-only detail view.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'détail' plus the read-only nature of the call, which signals a fetch-one-record operation. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as being a contract participant.

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