qobrix_get_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape ('Returns { data: { id, ... } }'), enumerates verified include options with their meaning, and gives a practical usage hint. It doesn't cover error cases or authentication, but for a simple GET tool this is solid behavioral disclosure.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then include semantics, then a practical example. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with just two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, what the response looks like, what the include parameter options mean, and a concrete usage scenario. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), the description adds significant semantic value by explaining what each verified include option represents (e.g., Contacts = buyer/seller, PropertyIdProperties = listing). This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Associations to expand'.

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 'Get a single contract by UUID' with a specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list/search tools by describing it as the 'deal close detail view' and specifies the unique purpose in the Transaction Lifecycle context.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (fetching a single contract detail) and even suggests a specific use case ('Use include=['PaymentInstallments'] to audit the payment timeline'). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate from list/search alternatives.

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