get_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only enumerates returned fields and says nothing about whether this is a safe read, whether it is expensive, what authorization it needs, or how large the payload can get. The scoping to a single contract is implied but never stated as a behavioral constraint.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource ('One contract's overview') before listing contents. Nothing is wasted, though the long comma/chained enumeration makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would be.

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?

An output schema exists, so the heavy focus on returned fields is partly redundant, and the description leaves usage and sibling selection entirely unaddressed for a tool whose siblings overlap in purpose. It is adequate — the agent knows what it gets back — but incomplete on when to prefer it.

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 100% with only two parameters, so contract_id's provenance ('from list_contracts') and include_text's effect ('also return each clause's full text') are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but not above baseline.

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 names the specific resource ('One contract's overview') and enumerates exactly what comes back: details, verdict components, clause color counts, per-clause risk level, and amendments with conflict counts. It is clear this fetches a single contract, distinguishing it implicitly from list_contracts, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like analyze_contract or compare_amendment.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus analyze_contract or list_contracts, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only procedural hint is buried in the schema (contract_id 'from list_contracts'), not the description. An agent must infer usage entirely from the sibling names.

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