alga_contracts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context: results are paginated one page at a time, templates are excluded, each item carries owner_client_id/owner_client_name, and there is no per-client filtering. It does not disclose default page size, ordering defaults, or whether a total count is returned, so it is useful but incomplete.

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?

Two compact sentences with the entity and pagination scope front-loaded, followed by the filter axes and the negative constraint. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers entity scope, pagination, per-item fields and filter axes, which is close to sufficient. The main residual gap is pagination mechanics such as default/maximum page size and sort defaults, though those are visible in the schema.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it maps contract_name, is_active and has_plans to filter semantics, and 'one page at a time' hints at page/limit. The sort and order parameters, including which fields are sortable, are left entirely to the bare enum in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List client contracts') plus the scope constraint of pagination and the exclusion of templates. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the singular get/search siblings and knows exactly what entity set is returned.

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 names the available filter axes (contract name, active state, has_plans) and rules out a tempting but unsupported path with 'There is no per-client filter here.' It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead for per-client lookups, leaving that inference to the agent.

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