list_activitylog_contracts

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It implies a read-only behavior without side effects, and explains who should use it. However, it could explicitly state that it is a read operation and disclose any potential edge cases (e.g., error for single-contract users). Still, for a simple list tool, the transparency is good.

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 concise—two sentences that provide all necessary information without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then gives context.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete in explaining the tool's audience and usage. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of contract IDs), but this is not critical as it's implied by the name and context.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description has no need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and it meets that by not introducing any confusion.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource ('List contracts accessible for IONOS CLOUD activity log queries'). It distinguishes the tool's value for reseller/partner users, setting it apart from other 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is primarily for reseller/partner users with multiple contracts, and single-contract users are directed to skip it and told where to find their contract number. This directly addresses usage context and alternatives.

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