list_contract_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that effective dates are included in the listing; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether versions include proposed versus signed terms, which is a modest gap for a zero-argument listing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the notable return detail (effective dates) are stated immediately. Nothing in the sentence is redundant with the tool name.

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?

With zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that carries return-value documentation, the description needs only to identify the resource and it does so. The remaining gap is relational context: whether these versions correspond to saved terms, proposals, or both, which an agent in this contract/reconciliation toolset might reasonably wonder.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning the description needs to supply. The schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('contract term versions') plus a scope detail ('on file with their effective dates'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from contract-related siblings like propose_contract_terms or save_contract_terms, so an agent must infer that this is the read-only enumeration path.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'on file', which suggests retrieving stored versions rather than drafting or saving them. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternative among the contract-term siblings.

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