list_contracts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing the operation's behavior. 'List' signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the status filter is mentioned. It does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, or ordering, but the tool is simple and the schema covers the limit and status parameters. The description adds only marginal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 only two short sentences with no filler or repetition. The core action 'List all contracts' is front-loaded, and the filter note adds useful capability information. Every word 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?

For a parameter-light read-only tool with no output schema, the description and schema together deliver the essential details: the action, the resource, and the only two optional inputs with their constraints. 'List' clearly indicates a collection return, and there are no nested objects or annotations to complicate the call. The lack of explicit sibling guidance and response-shape information is a minor gap, but the definition is nearly complete for its complexity.

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%, so both 'limit' and 'status' are fully documented in the input schema with types, defaults, and enum values. The description's 'Can filter by status' restates what the schema already says without adding meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the descriptive heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List,' and resource, 'contracts,' which clearly distinguishes the all-contracts listing endpoint from the singular get_contract and the mutation siblings. It also notes the optional status filter. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_contract, so it stops short of fully differentiating among siblings.

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 phrase 'List all contracts' implies this tool is for retrieving a collection rather than a single contract, which gives some usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like get_contract for a single contract. The usage is implied rather than stated, earning a 3.

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