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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces a read-only behavior ('Read the current state...'). It further discloses the precise shape of the return value ('Returns { contract, amendments }'), adding value beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose and key fields, followed by a usage hint and return structure. Every sentence serves a clear function; no extraneous words.

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 a single-parameter read-only tool with an existing output schema (not shown but referenced), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what data is returned and when to use it, leaving no ambiguity for a simple 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 only one parameter with 100% schema coverage. The description restates the parameter's function ('contract id to read state for'), which aligns with the schema's description. No additional semantic nuance is added.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current state of a contract') and enumerates key fields (status, timestamps, signer info, content_hash, amendments). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like contract_amend, contract_draft, contract_send.

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 explicitly states a use case ('Use this to check whether a customer has signed yet'), providing clear context for when to apply the tool. It does not formally outline when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous among siblings.

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