Get Contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the response contains three sibling top-level keys, subaward_rollup is Pro-only, and a legitimate subaward_count of 0 is not an error. These details help the agent interpret responses correctly.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by clear sibling-tool guidance and a compact parameter explanation. The return-key breakdown is lengthy but earns its place because it clarifies structure, Pro-only behavior, and an important zero-count edge case. No sentence is filler.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, alternatives, parameter sourcing, response shape, and edge-case interpretation. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines piid as 'award PIID' and names the source tools where an agent can obtain it. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string schema, though it stops short of providing format examples or validation guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one contract's LATEST transaction plus a roll-up of obligation/value totals across every modification.' It clearly frames this as the SUMMARY view and explicitly distinguishes it from get_contract_modifications and get_contract_vehicle, so an agent can select it correctly among siblings.

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?

It provides explicit routing guidance: use get_contract_modifications for individual modification rows and get_contract_vehicle for the vehicle context. It also tells the agent where to source the piid parameter (search_contracts, search_recompetes, or company award history), making the when-to-use and how-to-prepare instructions concrete.

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