Character contracts

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful content-level detail (names for issuer/assignee/acceptor, locations, prices, courier details, items), but doesn't cover pagination, the include_items 25-contract cap, or result size behavior. It adds value beyond annotations without fully characterizing the response.

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?

A single dense but efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the returned fields without filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-content burden and does list the key contract fields. Missing details like default status=active and item-fetch cap are covered by the schema, but behavioral bounds on results are not described.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents type, status, limit, character, and include_items. The description's mention of items in item-exchange/auction contracts lightly ties to include_items, but adds no syntax or default semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: retrieves a character's contracts (issued to/by them). The parenthetical clarifies scope (issued to or by), and it enumerates the concrete data fields returned. It doesn't distinguish from siblings, though there is no direct contracts alternative here.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The schema mentions the default active character and characters_list/character_select, but the description itself gives no usage context.

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