List contracts

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency by detailing the response envelope, item fields, pagination semantics (1-based page, limit 1..100), and filter options, going beyond the bare safety profile.

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 sentences, tightly packed with necessary information. The first sentence front-loads the primary outcome and response shape; the second covers fields and filters. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It fully specifies the response envelope (total, items, page, limit, hasNextPage, apiPointBalance), item fields, filter capabilities, and pagination constraints. This is comprehensive for a read-only list operation.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description echoes filter names and defaults but doesn't meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter details. It adds a bit of context by grouping filters and explaining 'parentId', but this is not substantial beyond schema.

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 'Returns one page of contracts registered under the account,' using a specific verb and resource while clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_contract. It also outlines pagination and filtering, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 usage by stating it returns contracts and how to narrow results via filters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool versus others.

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