Get a contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds the payload summary (rates, included hours), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior or whether nested/related entities are hydrated.

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?

A single compact sentence with the payload summary front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool description.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only getter whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description tells the agent the key contents returned. Only marginal gaps remain (no error/not-found behavior, no distinction from siblings), making it adequate but not rich.

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?

The single contractId parameter has full schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup-behavior detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('contract record') and goes beyond the title by stating the notable contents: rates and included hours. It does not explicitly name the sibling list_contracts, though 'Full contract record' implicitly distinguishes it from a list 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_contracts or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the contractId parameter.

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