Contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. "Registry management" weakly implies both reads and persistent writes (register), but nothing states that 'register' mutates stored state, whether duplicates are rejected or overwritten, or that the tool is a multi-action dispatcher where behavior varies entirely by the 'action' value.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, so it is not bloated. But brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency: the sentence ends before conveying the action-driven nature or any invocation context.

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 6-parameter tool with a required enum action, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent which action values require which companion parameters (e.g., register needs 'contract', check needs 'name'/'type'), making correct invocation largely guesswork.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, including a nested 'contract' object with required name/type/purpose and a 'filter' object, yet the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. It doesn't even mention that an 'action' selector is mandatory, which is the single most important thing to know before calling.

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 the resource (an API contract registry) and a broad goal (preventing duplicate methods), which is more informative than a bare restatement of the name. However, it gives no verb and never hints at the six distinct operations (register, check, find_duplicates, suggest_name, list, search) that the tool actually dispatches on, so an agent cannot tell what calling it concretely does.

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?

"To prevent duplicate methods" loosely implies you'd check the registry before defining a new API method, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to any alternative tool among the 35 siblings. With actions like 'check' vs 'find_duplicates' vs 'search' available, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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