Api contracts governing law country retrieve

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention that the response is a static choice list (governing law countries) rather than contract records, and the phrase "viewed or edited" points at capabilities this endpoint does not have.

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 sentence with no padding, so it is concise. But it is boilerplate with no front-loaded substance; the space is spent on a generic statement instead of the one useful fact about the tool.

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?

No output schema, no parameters, and a boilerplate description leave the agent with no idea what comes back (a list of country codes/labels) or what the endpoint is for. For a lookup endpoint whose only value is its return content, this is essentially undocumented.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 for a no-parameter endpoint.

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, "API endpoint that allows contracts to be viewed or edited," is generic Django REST framework boilerplate that restates the resource but not the actual operation. It never says this returns the set of countries available for a contract's governing-law field, and it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling contracts_* retrieve/list endpoints.

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 guidance on when to call this versus ciso_assistant_api_contracts_retrieve, contracts_list, or the sibling choice endpoints (currency, status, termination_reason). An agent has to infer from the tool name alone that this is a lookup/enumeration helper rather than a per-record fetch.

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