Get member contracts

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true), so the safety bar is met. The description adds genuine value beyond that by naming the response envelope key and the fields returned (AutopayStatus, NormalAutoPay, Start/End/TerminationDate), though it says nothing about pagination or auth requirements.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded fragments: endpoint and resource first, return shape second, sibling routing last. No padding and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the response envelope and fields, which is the critical missing piece for an agent. Coverage is strong for a two-param read tool; only the undocumented clientId semantics leave a small gap.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it never mentions clientId or siteId. The one documented parameter (siteId) is explained only in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever.

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+resource ('a client's contracts'), names the exact endpoint, and discloses the return structure ('array is under `Contracts`') and key fields. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling mbo_classify_client_payment by scoping that tool to the derived verdict.

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 routes the agent to mbo_classify_client_payment when a paying/promo/comp verdict is needed, which is clear alternative guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over mbo_get_client or mbo_get_client_services, leaving part of the routing to inference.

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