get_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the mandatory 'law' parameter and the single-law-per-call behavior. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and directly communicates the essential information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic usage but could be improved by mentioning pagination defaults, response structure, or any rate limits. It covers the core functionality but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'law' is mandatory and that the API returns contracts for one law, which is extra context beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'государственные контракты' (government contracts) with specific laws (44-FZ or 223-FZ) and participants (organization or individual entrepreneur). It distinguishes well from sibling tools which cover different entities (company, bank, etc.).

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?

The description explicitly states that the 'law' parameter is mandatory and returns contracts for one law per call. While it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and the sibling tools are distinct, so usage is well implied.

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