ibkr_contract_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by framing the operation as resolving a partial definition into full details, but it does not disclose behaviors such as multiple matches being possible, how limit applies, or what happens when no contract matches.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, it is so terse that it misses opportunities to add routing or behavioral context that could have been included without bloating the description.

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?

There is no output schema, and the contract object has many nested fields with sparse per-field descriptions. The description does not explain what 'contract details' will be returned, how matching works, or how the limit parameter interacts with multiple results. For a tool with this complexity, the description is under-specified.

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% for the top-level parameters: 'limit' and 'contract' both have descriptions. The tool description itself adds little beyond the schema, but the schema's contract parameter description already explains the partial-definition semantics and gives a concrete example for stocks, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb ('Resolve') and resource ('IBKR contract definition') and indicates the tool returns matching contract details. It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ibkr_search_contracts, which also deals with contracts.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ibkr_search_contracts. The only usage hint ('For stocks, symbol plus SMART/USD is usually enough') lives inside the schema's contract parameter description, not in the tool description, and it addresses input construction rather than tool selection.

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