Get Fidensa Certification Contract

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description reinforces by stating 'Retrieve' and does not contradict. It adds the behavioral context of requiring an API key for access, which is valuable beyond the 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?

The description is concise with two sentences: one defining the tool's purpose and content, and one noting the API key requirement. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description covers the key contextual information: what the contract includes and the API key prerequisite. It is nearly complete, lacking only potential details like response format or size limits.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (capability_id and version). The description does not add further semantic details about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'full certification contract for a capability', and lists specific included components. It effectively differentiates from siblings like check_certification (which likely checks status) by focusing on retrieving the complete contract.

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 notes the prerequisite of a free API key and setting FIDENSA_API_KEY, which is useful. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., check_certification for quick checks, compare_capabilities for comparisons).

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