list_archived_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose pagination behaviors (limit/offset), sorting, or what 'archived' entails. It only states the action without additional behavioral 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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is well-front-loaded and efficiently sized.

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, the description is minimal but lacks adequate context. It does not mention that the tool returns only archived contracts, how pagination works, or what fields are returned. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important details unspecified, especially given the proximity of similar sibling tools like 'list_contracts'.

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 schema already describes both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'List all' implies pagination but adds no detail about parameter formats or defaults beyond 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?

The description 'List all archived contracts' clearly uses the verb 'list' and specifies the resource as 'archived contracts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_contracts' and 'get_archived_contract'. It unambiguously indicates the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'list_contracts' might be used for non-archived contracts, nor does it explain any filters or preferred use cases. Context signals show sibling tools but the description gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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