Get Contract'S Invoice Configuration

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

The description includes pagination details and mentions the response format, but it contains an internal contradiction: the tool is about invoice configuration but the description mentions 'Contracts'. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, but the description fails to clarify whether the response is a single object or array (it claims 'paginated JSON array of Contracts' which doesn't match the invoice configuration endpoint). This confusion undermines transparency.

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 moderately concise but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Get the details... Use this to fetch...') and includes API endpoint info that, while helpful, could be trimmed. It is front-loaded with the purpose but loses efficiency due to the contradictory statements.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned. It states 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Contracts' but the tool is about invoice configuration, so this is likely incorrect. It lacks details on error responses, permissions, or links to related workflows. The contradiction makes the description incomplete for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description only reiterates that project_id and contract_id are required and mentions pagination parameters, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the details of a specific Contract's Invoice Configuration' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, the subsequent sentence 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Contracts by its identifier' contradicts by suggesting it retrieves contract details rather than invoice configuration. This ambiguity reduces clarity but the core purpose is still discernible from the name and first sentence.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Contracts by its identifier.' It also notes required parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which is adequate for a read-only tool with a specific endpoint.

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