get_report_contract

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full responsibility. It clearly says the tool 'returns' a structure and rules, which implies a non-mutating retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose any details about the return format, version, caching behavior, or permissions required, though this is less critical for a 0-parameter read-like tool.

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 one sentence of 11 words, front-loaded, with no filler or repeated information. It captures the essential behavior as precisely as possible for a simple contract-retrieval 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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple contract lookup. The main gap is that it doesn't frame the relation to sibling tools such as get_report_evidence_pack, but that's a usage-guidance concern rather than a core completeness failure.

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 has no parameters with an empty schema, so the description cannot need to add anything beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools is appropriate; nothing is unfilled.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a concrete resource ('stable structure and writing rules for end-user activity reports'), which strongly communicates the tool's deliverable. It distinguishes itself from all siblings (activity data, evidence packs) by focusing on the report contract itself.

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?

No usage context or when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this instead of siblings like get_report_evidence_pack or get_activity_summary, so the agent must infer from the tool's name and description alone.

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