List contracts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool is paginated, returns specific fields, supports free-text search, and the extra_filters parameter is a verbatim pass-through. No contradictions, and adds context beyond 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the returned fields. It covers pagination, search, common filters, and the escape hatch. Given 6 parameters and complexity (nested object in extra_filters), the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the pagination parameters, free-text query, display_status and contract_type_id filters, and crucially describes extra_filters as an 'escape hatch' with an example, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 it lists contracts in the SpotDraft workspace, paginated, and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings like search_actions and execute_read_request by mentioning the 'common filters' and the escape hatch for advanced filters.

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 explicitly states that for filters not exposed here, the agent should use search_actions to find the v2.1 API endpoint and call it via execute_read_request. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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