get_contract_hourly_rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses 'Get' (implying a read operation) and lists the return content, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free, nor does it mention any potential errors, permissions, or rate limits. The return field list provides some behavioral context, but the non-mutating nature is only implied, not disclosed.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and return fields succinctly, the second gives the usage prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, lists all return fields, and explains how to obtain the required ID. It does not mention behavior when no rates exist (e.g., empty array) or any pagination, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this 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?

The schema covers the single parameter (contractId) with a basic description, and coverage is 100%. The description adds value by telling the agent to fetch the contractId via get_project_contracts, which is extra semantics beyond the schema. This warrants a 4 rather than the baseline 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 the tool retrieves all hourly rates for a specific contract and lists the returned fields (rate name, amount, currency, type, active status). It is specific about the resource (contract) but does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling get_hourly_rates, so it misses the explicit sibling differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 explicit guidance on the prerequisite step: 'Use get_project_contracts first to find the contractId.' This tells the agent when and how to obtain the required parameter. However, it does not address when to choose this tool over get_hourly_rates or other alternative tools, so it falls short of full 5.

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