List sub-contracts

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description focuses on added value: results are returned 'newest first' and include status values (Draft, Submitted, Committed, Approved), plus the full field set including retainage. It does not mention pagination behavior (default 25, max 100) despite exposing a cursor, which is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its key fields, then the ordering and filter capabilities. The long field enumerations overlap somewhat (subcontractor/project/amount repeated as contract total, billed, paid, balance), which costs a little density.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, the sort order, and the status vocabulary. It is nearly complete for a filtered list tool; only pagination semantics are left to the schema.

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 75% and cursor/search/project_id are documented in the schema; the description only restates that project and search filtering exist. It adds nothing about limit defaults or the meaning of cursor ordering beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Reads the Contractor Foreman Sub-Contracts list') and enumerates the returned fields, so it is unmistakably the list counterpart to get_sub_contract. An agent can distinguish it from list_* siblings for other resources without opening the schema.

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 closing 'Filter by project or search' implies when the optional filters apply, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this list tool versus get_sub_contract for a single record, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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