freelance_get_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the required permission, the membership constraint, and the financially significant escrowStatus FUNDED behavior. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but 'get' and 'by id' make that largely implicit.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the warning about funded milestones earns its place by preventing a costly mistake.

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-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the return content, states the required access, and adds the critical approval caveat. Nothing needed to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, id, is already described as 'The contract id.' The description adds no further parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because nothing more is needed for a single unambiguous identifier.

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: 'One contract by id, with its milestones and their escrow state.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list and action tools, and the mention of milestones and escrow state identifies the unique payload this tool returns.

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 gives a clear use context: read this before approving milestones, and it names the prerequisite READ_OWN and membership. It does not explicitly contrast with freelance_list_contracts, but the 'by id' wording makes the selection obvious.

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