get_contract_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. Description adds meaningful context about ownership scope (tenant from bearer token), which clarifies the security boundary not visible in annotations. Doesn't mention output format or pagination, but with readOnlyHint the bar is lower; still adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Description is a single informative sentence with a follow-up on required access. It is front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then access requirements. Efficient use of words without redundancy, though could be slightly more structured but not verbose.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, access conditions, and special-case usage (customerContext). It could mention what the template contains or return format, but given low complexity and good annotations, this is nearly complete. Missing explicit statement of what identity the template is returned for, but implied.

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 50% (only customerContext has a description, templateID has none). The description adds context for customerContext (required for DoiT employees, omit for direct customers) which is not in the schema. templateID remains undocumented, but description's context about owner and scope helps infer its meaning. Compensates well for the gap.

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?

Description states it manages contract templates for PartnerOps resellers, returns a single template owned by the authenticated tenant, and clearly distinguishes from sibling 'list_contract_templates' which presumably lists multiple templates. The verb 'get' and resource are explicit.

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 context (PartnerOps resellers, T1/T2) and notes when customerContext is required (for DoiT employees) vs omitted for direct customers. Doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but clear context implies standard retrieval. Lacks exclusion of alternatives beyond the sibling list tool, but sufficient.

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