get_contract

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

The description says 'List and manage,' which implies mutating behavior, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the read-only nature of the tool, making the description misleading about side effects.

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 brief but includes the redundant and misleading 'List and manage' phrase, which weakens its precision. It is not front-loaded with the core purpose, though it is concise overall.

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 simple retrieval nature and readOnly annotations, the description minimally states what it returns. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify the structure of the returned contract or any error conditions, leaving some gaps for a getter tool.

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 only 33% (customerContext has a description, contractID and customerID do not). The description adds no explanation of these required parameters, such as their purpose or format, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 it 'Returns the specified contract,' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation. However, the opening phrase 'List and manage' is misleading and suggests broader functionality than the tool name implies, undermining clarity slightly.

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 mentions the caller type (T1/T2 PartnerOps) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_contracts or get_contract_template. No exclusions or context about selection criteria are given.

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