cor_get_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only indicates it's a read operation (get), but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or returns. The description is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It directly states the purpose and parameter in two lines, earning its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks any broader context about what a 'contract' is or how this tool relates to similar ones like cor_get_contract_positions. Minimal but adequate for a simple fetch.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: 'contract_id: The contract ID'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source. It clarifies the parameter's role but does not go beyond the obvious. For a single parameter, this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 explicitly states 'Get a single contract by ID', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like cor_list_contracts (list) and cor_create_contract (create), and implies a direct lookup by identifier.

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 implies usage when you have a contract ID, but no explicit guidance is given on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., use cor_list_contracts for multiple contracts). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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