Show First Prime Contract

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive nature. Description adds value by detailing pagination behavior (returns paginated JSON, controls via page/per_page, includes metadata). No contradiction with 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?

Description is somewhat wordy with redundancy (e.g., 'Prime Contract' repeated) and includes API reference that may be extraneous. However, it is structured and provides key information without excessive length.

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?

Covers main aspects: return type, pagination, required parameter, and alternative tool. Lacks error conditions or limits, but for a simple read tool with a well-defined schema, this is adequate.

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 100%, so schema already explains parameters. Description only reiterates that project_id is required, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 it returns the first Prime Contract for a project, but also mentions fetching 'a specific Prime Contracts by its identifier,' which is inconsistent. However, it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_prime_contracts by noting the alternative endpoint.

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?

Explicitly advises using the /prime_contracts endpoint when multiple contracts are needed, providing clear guidance on alternative. Does not mention when not to use the tool, but the context is mostly covered.

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