get_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any required permissions, error behaviors, or response format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb, leaving an agent uncertain about operational constraints.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get details of a specific contract') and then provides the identification method. Every word serves a purpose, achieving high efficiency and clarity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it does and how to specify the target. However, because there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned what kind of details are returned or that it returns a full contract object. This is a minor gap but not critical for a simple read operation.

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% and the schema already states 'Contract ID or token' for the id parameter. The description repeats this same information ('by ID or token') without adding new meaning, such as format, examples, or the relationship between the two identifier types. Thus, the description adds no extra semantic value over the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific contract'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_contracts by targeting a single contract. The addition of 'by ID or token' further clarifies how the contract is identified, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 context: use this when you need details for a single contract and have its ID or token. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as preferring list_contracts when wanting multiple contracts, or create/update/delete for modifications. This is a clear context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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