get_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the result is a list of contracts with amounts, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are returned, whether pagination applies, or what the actual response structure looks like.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter clarification is placed second where it is easy to find.

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 single-parameter read-style tool, the description gives enough to understand what is returned at a high level and where the parameter comes from. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of response details and usage boundaries leaves moderate gaps for an agent that needs to invoke or interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The schema only defines contragent_id as a string with no description, while the tool description adds that it is a UUID and points to the exact source field ('id' in get_contragent_status). This is valuable semantic clarification for the only parameter and compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the resource (counterparty contracts) and the included data (accruals, payments, penalties, debt), so an agent can tell it is a contract-list tool. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a direct verb+resource, and it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_contragent_debt or get_contragent_bills.

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 only usage guidance is that contragent_id comes from the 'id' field in get_contragent_status, which helps with parameter sourcing but not tool selection. There is no indication of when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it.

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