List contracts

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the contract-type enumeration but says nothing beyond the schema about pagination behavior or output size trade-offs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource identity leads. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is minimally adequate. With no output schema and no statement of what a summary versus full item contains, an agent lacks guidance on the full=true trade-off beyond what the schema field text already says.

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 75%, with customerId being the undocumented parameter. The phrase "optionally for one customer" supplies that missing meaning, so the description partially compensates. The remaining parameters are already well described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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?

Names the resource (customer contracts) and enumerates the concrete types (retainer, block hours, hourly), which tells an agent exactly what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the singular get_contract sibling, so routing between the two is left to the name.

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?

"Optionally for one customer" implies the customerId filter is available but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the get_contract alternative, and no indication of what to do when the caller does not know the customer id (find_customers/list_customers exist as siblings).

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