pws_contract_advice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by explaining the analysis dimensions (expiry, pay, performance, etc.) and the decision categories it outputs, providing behavioral context 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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then lists decision factors. Every word contributes meaning; no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the tool's high-level purpose. It lacks information about parameter usage, return format, or how the advice is structured, making it insufficient for confident invocation in complex scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter names or semantics. Parameters like limit, workerId, usageDays, horizonDays, and includeStaff are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('player-company contracts') and clearly lists the output types (renewal, retention, renegotiation, release). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pws_get_worker_contracts by focusing on advice rather than retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for contract advice. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer it over alternatives like pws_get_worker_contracts or pws_analyze_hiring, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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