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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only notes 'Auth Required' but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, output format, or whether it returns full contract details. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool without annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Critical info ('Auth Required') is front-loaded. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on expected output, behavior (e.g., returns empty list if none), or any edge-case handling. For a list tool, more context is needed for reliable use.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the scope (authenticated agent's contracts). With 0 params, baseline is 4; the description meets this.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'contracts the authenticated agent is a member of.' It differentiates from siblings like 'get-contract' and 'get-contract-members' by specifying the scope as the agent's own membership. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other 'get-my-*' 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 description implies when to use: when listing contracts the agent is a member of. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'get-contract' for specific contract details. Adequate but lacks exclusions.

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