registry / list_contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description usefully signals that deprecated records are retained in results, but 'preserving task identity' is unexplained and there is no note on result shape or filtering.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded. It wastes little, though the second half is abstract.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe what is returned, yet it only hints at 'deprecated records' and says nothing about chain_id's role or the record fields. For a registry listing tool this leaves real gaps.

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 single parameter chain_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or what values are valid. With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Rootstock registry deployments'), which is distinguishable from siblings like registry.list_networks and registry.resolve_deployment. The trailing phrase 'preserving task identity and deprecated records' is vague but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to prefer this over registry.list_networks or registry.resolve_deployment for a given task.

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