list_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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions each line includes bill plan type/status, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose aspects like whether unfiltered calls return large result sets, pagination behavior, read-only safety, or field presentation differences from query_peoplesoft_db. For a database-facing listing tool with zero annotations, more behavioral context is expected.

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 uses a leading one-sentence summary followed by per-parameter doc lines, which is a clean, front-loaded structure. There is minimal redundancy between the summary and the parameter list. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the docstring-style parameter layout is slightly verbose compared to a compact inline style.

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?

The tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, so the description carries substantial responsibility. It covers all parameters with examples and returns basic return info ('List of matching contract lines with bill plan info'). However, it doesn't mention result ordering, potential large result sets for unfiltered calls, or how this interacts with sibling query tools like query_peoplesoft_db. Adequate but with room to strengthen.

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 fully compensate. It does so well: each parameter is described with its semantics (business unit code, contract number, effective status) and enum-like value meanings are explained ('A' = Active, 'I' = Inactive). The description also adds the important detail that each line includes bill plan type/status, going beyond what the schema conveys.

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 clearly states 'List contract detail lines' and enumerates the optional filters (business unit, contract number, effective status). It distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings that deal with projects and bill plans, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'list' with specific resource 'contract detail lines' plus filter options gives solid purpose clarity.

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 implies the tool is a filtered listing tool by naming each filter parameter and providing example values ('UCD', 'UCB', 'A' = Active, 'I' = Inactive). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_project_contracts or query_peoplesoft_db, nor does it note whether it complements those tools for different use cases.

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