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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what the read exposes: fields, status, missing issuance data (gaps), clauses, versions, invoices, and history. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but it is materially richer than the annotations alone.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The colon-separated list is dense but purposeful; 'Klauseln wie gedruckt' is slightly compact, though still informative.

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 no output schema, the description is largely complete: it enumerates the returned aspects and makes clear that this is a detailed contract read. It does not mention behavior for invalid or missing contract IDs, which keeps it from being fully exhaustive.

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%, and the single required parameter is documented as 'Vertrags-ID'. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: read a rental contract. It also enumerates the kinds of detail returned, such as fields, status, gaps, clauses, versions, invoices, and history, which makes the tool's purpose concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_contracts or download_contract_pdf, so it falls short of a 5.

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 detail-oriented content listing implies that this tool is for inspecting a single contract, while list_contracts would be for browsing. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives.

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