list_asset_contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool lists 'maintenance and support contracts,' which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, default sorting, or the meaning of 'active' defaulting to true. With annotations covering safety and expansiveness, the description provides adequate but minimal extra context.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits useful context such as the default behavior of the 'active' filter (true) and does not mention that results are paginated via the 'limit' parameter. The openWorldHint implies many results, but the description could be more complete by noting typical use cases or expected result format.

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 three parameters (limit, active, asset_sys_id) have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, when coverage is high, baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'asset maintenance and support contracts', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_assets' by specifying 'maintenance and support contracts' rather than generic assets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other contract-related list tools like 'list_software_licenses'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'list_assets' or 'list_software_licenses'. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone.

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