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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the operation is a read-only lookup ('Consulta') scoped to the current tenant, and it emphasizes using the public_uid rather than an internal ID. However, it does not address sensitive data behaviors, response profiles, or potential authorization requirements, which are relevant given the schema's sensitive parameters.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action, resource, and key identifier. It contains no fluff and every phrase contributes meaning. This is a model of concise structure.

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?

The description provides the core purpose but lacks broader context. It does not explain when to use this tool versus list/search, nor does it outline the behavior of response_profile or sensitive data access, even though these are present in the schema. For a simple get-by-ID tool with a rich schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps in usage guidance and sensitive-data handling.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, except reinforcing that 'id' is the public_uid. Since the schema already explains each parameter clearly, 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool queries a contract record ('registro de contrato') for the current tenant, using the public_uid. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling get tools for other entities, and the mention of 'somente public_uid' clarifies the lookup key. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_contrato or search. The description only explains what the tool does, not the appropriate context or scenarios. For example, it does not mention that this is for fetching a single record by ID, while list is for enumeration and search for more complex queries.

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