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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the two-phase draft/confirm_draft flow, states that it returns a draft for review, and explicitly warns 'REQUIRES EXPLICIT USER CONFIRMATION.' It also clarifies that this is a write operation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured: an opening summary, a workflow note, a warning, and a grouped action/parameter section. It is slightly redundant in mentioning the draft/confirm_draft flow twice, but every sentence carries useful information and the most important warnings are front-loaded.

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 destructive write operation with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: prerequisites (reason codes via list_contracts), the required flow (returns a draft, call confirm_draft), the required parameters, and the optional review grouping. It leaves no critical gap for safe invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by summarizing the six optional scores and comment, and by stating 'Provide all six scores together for a complete review,' which is a constraint not present in the schema. It also reinforces the source of reason_id and contract_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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'End a contract with a reason code, optionally attaching a freelancer review.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling update_contract by describing a terminal action rather than a modification, even without naming the sibling 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?

The description gives clear usage context: use list_contracts action=end_reasons first to get reason codes, and call confirm_draft after explicit user approval to execute. It does not explicitly describe when to choose this over alternatives like update_contract, but the workflow is well-defined enough that an agent can identify correct usage.

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