get_contract

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a non-destructive read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds that the response contains 'full details' (as opposed to a list summary), but says nothing about permissions, not-found handling, or size. Adequate but thin beyond the annotation.

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 sentence of ten words with the resource and the lookup key front-loaded. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

Simple getter with one fully documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, and no output schema exists to describe. 'Full details' gestures at the return payload, which is about as much as a one-line getter needs; only not-found/error semantics are missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents contract_id fully. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing the schema does not, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (contract), and scope (a single one, by ID, full details). This clearly separates it from list_contracts and from the mutation siblings update_contract/terminate_contract, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the precondition that the caller already knows which contract it wants, which is an implicit usage cue. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_contracts or get_compliance_status, and no stated error behavior for unknown IDs.

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