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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that — that API keys and passwords are excluded from results — but says nothing about pagination, result size, or filtering behavior for a list operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the exclusion note. No filler, though the API-endpoint reference is slightly redundant given the tool name.

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 should convey what a contract record looks like or how results are shaped, but it only says what is excluded. Adequate to call correctly, incomplete for interpreting results.

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 100%, with both optional parameters (intentId, organisationId) fully documented including the default-organisation behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource precisely — carrier contracts the company can ship with — and anchors it to a known API endpoint (GET /api/Contracts). The verb 'list' is only implied by the tool name, but scope is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools like ListBrands or ListSenders.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings such as AddPartnerRate or GetPartnerCarrierSurcharges. The API-endpoint reference is informational, not a usage rule.

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