boond_contracts_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning response format, error behavior, required permissions, or whether the contract might be returned in a nested structure. For a simple read tool this is minimal but still leaves unknowns.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It states the action, resource, and key qualifier clearly and front-loads the most important information. Every word earns 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?

For a one-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is almost sufficient: the agent knows what operation to perform and on what resource. It does not explain what the response contains, but 'Get a contract' reasonably implies returning the contract object. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 0%, and there is one required parameter 'id'. The description's 'by ID' confirms the parameter's role but adds little beyond what the property name already implies; it does not describe ID format, source, or how to obtain one. However, with a single obvious parameter, this is minimally adequate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'contract', with the qualifier 'by ID' making it clear this is a direct single-record lookup rather than a search. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the by-ID wording differentiates it from boond_contracts_search and the create/update tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus boond_contracts_search or other retrieval tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name and ID parameter that this is for fetching a known contract.

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