get_executed_commercial_agreement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by emphasizing 'immutable' and 'exact', which tells the agent the record cannot change and is addressed as a specific custody artifact, adding value beyond the annotations.

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 7-word sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes meaningful information.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with a rich annotation set and an output schema, so return behavior and safety are covered. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics and explicit relationships to sibling tools leaves the description only minimally viable for an agent to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the three required parameters (record_id, company_ref, project_ref) or how they relate to the custody record. With no parameter descriptions in the schema and no compensating information in the description, an agent cannot infer the semantic role of each field from the provided text.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('executed-agreement custody record'), and key qualifiers ('one exact immutable'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling registration/resolution tools and tells an agent exactly what operation this tool performs.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to retrieve a single specific executed-agreement custody record. However, it does not explicitly describe when to prefer this tool over related siblings like register_executed_commercial_agreement or resolve_executed_commercial_agreement, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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