get_project_contracts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the return shape ('project record, contract detail lines, bill plan') and references internal table names (CA_DETAIL, CA_BILL_PLAN), providing useful behavioral context about what data relationships are traversed. It doesn't describe pagination or what happens when there are many bills, but for a retrieval tool the return-structure framing is a meaningful transparency contribution.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a purpose paragraph, and a docstring-style parameter listing. It's appropriately sized — not verbose, each sentence adds context. The formatting is clean and scannable. Minor deduction for the docstring boilerplate not being stripped, but it's efficient overall.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey the return structure, which it does (project record, contract lines, bill plans with table names). For a 2-param read tool with a clear scope, this is reasonably complete. It doesn't discuss error cases or edge conditions, but the core purpose and data relationships are sufficiently documented for agent selection.

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%, so the description must compensate. The docstring explains business_unit as 'Business unit code (e.g., 'UCD', 'UCB')' with concrete examples, and project_id as 'The project ID.' This adds some value beyond the bare schema (which has no descriptions), though 'The project ID' is thin and the two params are not deeply characterized. Basline for 0% coverage would be low, so the examples help, but there's limited enrichment.

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?

Description clearly states the verb+resource: "Get a project along with all contract lines and bill plans tied to it." It names the specific tables (CA_DETAIL, CA_BILL_PLAN) and the broader goal (understanding full billing picture). However, it's not fully distinguished from siblings like get_bill_plan or list_contracts — the relationship to them is implied but not explicit.

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 identifies this as 'the primary tool for understanding a project's full billing picture,' which conveys a primary-use context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., when only a single bill plan is needed, use get_bill_plan). The guidance is implied through the 'primary tool' framing rather than explicit exclusions.

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