Api contracts termination reason retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description explicitly advertises that contracts can be 'edited'. That is a direct contradiction of the structured safety profile, and no compensating behavior (what the response contains, that it is a reference/enumeration lookup) is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is not verbose. However, brevity here stems from generic boilerplate rather than from economy of information, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

This is a zero-parameter retrieve with no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn that the call returns the set of available contract termination reasons. It provides none of that, and its 'edited' claim actively misleads about capability.

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 disambiguate and no schema gap to fill. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level additions are needed or expected.

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 the generic DRF boilerplate 'API endpoint that allows contracts to be viewed or edited', which restates the resource but never says what this specific tool does. It says nothing about 'termination reason' (the distinguishing element in the tool name), so an agent cannot tell it apart from the dozens of other contracts_* siblings.

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 alternatives such as api_contracts_list, api_contracts_retrieve, or api_contracts_status_retrieve, and no indication of what input or precondition selects this endpoint. Worse, 'viewed or edited' points the agent toward write use cases that this tool cannot serve.

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