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

The description discloses that it auto-fills 8 fields, uses default currency and dev profile, and returns a draft status. This adds behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It does not contradict 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and then concisely adds workflow context. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the single parameter, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, return value (contract row with status='draft'), and subsequent steps (edit and send). No gaps remain.

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?

The sole parameter 'projectId' has a schema description ('Project to draft a contract for') that already clarifies its purpose. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for 100% coverage.

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 ('Draft a contract') and the resource ('a brief_ready project'). It explains the auto-fill behavior and return value, and contrasts with sibling tools like contract_amend and contract_send, providing clear differentiation.

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 outlines the workflow: draft from brief_ready project, then edit via PATCH API (noting no MCP edit tool yet), then call contract_send. This provides context for when to use and what to do next, though it does not explicitly state when not to use.

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