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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two useful non-annotation facts: the contract is the 'public' variant, and the listing must be 'active' (implying inactive ids fail). It omits return shape and error behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no filler, and the resource being returned is front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 rich annotations this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the agent gets no idea what the 'execution contract' contains. A brief note on the returned payload or the active-listing failure mode would close the gap.

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 schema documents only that api_id is a uuid. The description partly compensates by framing it as identifying 'one active listing', which constrains valid values, but it does not restate the uuid format or explain what to do with a non-active or unknown id.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the public Mahshar agent execution contract') scoped to 'one active listing'. An agent can tell this is a single-resource fetch rather than a search or execution call, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as search_apis to find an id first or execute_api_call to act on the contract. The only usage signal is the implicit constraint that the target must be an 'active listing', which is a precondition rather than routing guidance.

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