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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's value is in adding sort order ('newest first') and the shape of each row (amount, currency, proposal_id, history). Those details are not derivable from annotations or schema. Minor redundancy in the '[read]' tag, and pagination behavior is not described.

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 tight sentences with the scope and ordering front-loaded and zero filler. The only waste is the '[read]' prefix, which restates readOnlyHint=true.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the row fields, and it discloses ordering and the filter semantics. Pagination (page/per_page defaults) is the one gap, though the defaults make correct invocation likely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 3 of 5 parameters: it clarifies that customer_id and customer_uuid are alternative identifiers for the same filter, and it supplies the status enum values (DRAFT | SENT | REVISION | ACCEPTED | REJECTED) that the schema types only as a bare string. It says nothing about page or per_page, leaving pagination undocumented.

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 names a specific resource (contracts) and states scope: all contracts, or narrowed to one customer or one status, ordered newest first. An agent can distinguish it from list_customer_proposals / list_customer_invoices by the resource name, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied by the filtering options ('optionally of one customer ... or one status'), which tells the agent this is the read path for browsing contracts. However, it never states when to prefer a sibling (e.g., get_customer for a customer's full record) nor whether the customer and status filters can be combined, since it says 'or'.

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