Api contracts export csv retrieve

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

The description says contracts can be "viewed or edited" while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false — an export endpoint cannot edit anything. Beyond that contradiction, the description says nothing about the CSV payload, its encoding, or how the file is returned.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but the one sentence carries no real information — brevity at the cost of substance rather than in service of it.

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 zero-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description is the only place to state that the response is a CSV file of contracts. It omits that entirely and instead describes view/edit behavior, leaving the agent without the one fact it needs.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts here.

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 is generic Django-REST boilerplate ("allows contracts to be viewed or edited") and never mentions that this endpoint exports contracts as CSV, which is the whole point of the tool name. An agent comparing it to siblings like contracts_export_xlsx_retrieve or contracts_list gets no signal distinguishing it.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the CSV alternative (contracts_export_xlsx_retrieve) or of when a plain list/retrieve call would be preferable. The only clue is the tool name itself.

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