list_contracts

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

The description discloses permission requirements and tenant scoping. It mentions 'Read access requires...' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. The initial phrase 'List and manage' could imply write capabilities, but the rest of the description clarifies it is a listing operation, so no contradiction exists. It adds useful context beyond annotations about who can call and token scope.

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 reasonably concise, consisting of four sentences covering purpose, scope, permissions, and token requirements. It is front-loaded with the main action. The phrase 'List and manage' is slightly redundant since it only lists, but overall the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 list operation with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, who can use it, and permission requirements. It doesn't mention pagination or sorting, but these are not required for completeness given the tool's simplicity and the annotations provide safety assurances.

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 in the schema). The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning: it mentions 'specified customer' but doesn't explain the distinction between customerID and customerContext. The schema already covers customerContext well, and customerID is self-evident, so the description provides little additional value.

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 the tool 'Lists the contracts held by the specified customer', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_contract (which retrieves a single contract) by indicating this is a listing operation scoped to a customer.

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 gives concrete guidance on when the tool is callable: by T1/T2 PartnerOps principal for their own tenant or descendant tenants. It also specifies permission requirements (contractsReadOnly, contractsViewer, or write-capable role). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scoping and permission context make usage clear.

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