get_evaluation_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the resource is read-only and that contracts are insert-only and versioned per programme (so no mutation path exists), but says nothing about permissions, not-found behavior, or how versioning affects which version is returned.

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?

Front-loads the read-only getter semantics in the first phrase and follows with compact domain context; every sentence earns its place. The fragmented line breaks are slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the immutability/versioning note covers the main behavioral question for a single-resource getter. Only caller-side permissions and error conditions remain unaddressed, which is a minor 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents contract_id fully. The description adds no format, naming, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Read one evaluation contract') with explicit scope of a single record. It implicitly contrasts with sibling create_evaluation_contract via the read vs. create framing, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides domain context ('the promotion pipeline reads them to learn which metrics a campaign is scored under'), which implies when this data matters, but gives no explicit guidance on when an agent should call this versus list_promotion_decisions or create_evaluation_contract, and states no prerequisites or exclusions.

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