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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It thoroughly discloses that free-tier values may be masked, that quotas vary by account type, and that exceeding limits returns isError with instructions. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and return contents, then provides necessary operational details about masking and quotas. Every sentence carries relevant information without redundancy.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns, including the structure of the card and specification items. It also covers degradation behavior, quota limits, and error signaling, making the tool fully usable by an agent.

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?

There is only one parameter and the input schema already documents it fully with 100% coverage. The description mentions cctUniqID but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema states about it being the internal 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning a contract card by internal ID (cctUniqID), listing both header fields and specification line items. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_contracts and get_tender by specifying the exact resource and retrieval key.

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 implies when to use it: when you have an internal contract ID (cctUniqID). It gives useful quota and tier context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools or provide exclusion conditions.

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