get_contract_active_signature_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, null behavior, or error conditions. The simple read nature is clear, but deeper context is missing.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary wording. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy or digression.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does not fully explain what is returned or what 'active' means. However, for a simple getter with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate; it could be improved by specifying the return behavior.

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 parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Contract ID' (100% coverage). The description adds negligible semantic value beyond the schema, only restating that the request is for a contract.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('the active signature request for a contract'), clearly differentiating it from siblings like get_signature_request and list_signature_requests. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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?

The description implies usage when one needs the active signature request for a given contract, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or list any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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