get_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Despite being a 'get' operation implying read-only behavior, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, provide authentication requirements, or mention rate limits. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the name.

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 that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous information. It is efficiently structured and 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of the tool (retrieving contract and resource limit info), the description is vague about what exactly is returned. It does not mention the response structure, pagination, or any edge cases, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 does not add any meaning beyond the input schema, which already documents the 'depth' parameter with a description. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 tool retrieves contract and resource limit information for an IONOS CLOUD account, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('contract'). While it distinguishes from sibling 'list_*' and other 'get_*' tools, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, leading to a score of 4.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other get/list tools. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without sufficient decision support.

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