Get Purchase Contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile and idempotency are covered. The description adds that the tool returns the header and optionally items, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits (e.g., error behavior) but acceptable given annotations.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get a purchase contract header'). No redundant or filler information. 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with two parameters and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the main behavior (header + optional items) and identifies the key parameter (contract number). Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the contract doesn't exist or the response format, but given no output schema and low complexity, this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description rephrases the parameters (contract number, optionally items) but does not add new semantic meaning such as expected formats, validation rules, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 tool retrieves a purchase contract header and optionally its items by contract number. It specifies the verb (Get), resource (purchase contract), and scope (header and optionally items). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like s4_purchase_contract_list (lists contracts) and s4_purchase_contract_create/update (write operations).

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 you have a contract number and need details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like s4_purchase_contract_list or s4_purchase_contract_get for items. No exclusions or explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., contract must exist).

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