get_protocol_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It implies a read-only list operation but does not disclose what 'all known contracts' includes, whether results are paginated, or what fields are returned. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or output characteristics.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant info. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the one-sentence description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, any constraints on protocolId, or link to protocol discovery, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly in context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% since protocolId has a description in the schema. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format or relationship to other tools. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'List' and clearly states the resource 'all known application contracts for an Algorand protocol', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve protocol metadata or summaries. The intent is unambiguous.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like get_protocol or get_protocol_summary, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid protocolId from get_protocols). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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