check_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes what status information is returned but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or address error handling, authentication, or the fallback behavior when contract_id is omitted (though that is in the schema). The word 'check' implies non-mutating behavior, but safety is not explicitly conveyed.

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 a useful dash-enclosed elaboration. It is concise and front-loaded, with no filler, delivering all necessary information efficiently.

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?

The description explains the key output components (milestones done, remaining work, payout status) sufficiently for a status tool. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as what happens when no active contract exists or error conditions. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100% with descriptions for both user_id and contract_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it does align with contract_id by saying 'specific contract'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks the status of a specific contract, listing relevant details (milestones done, what's left, payout status). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like 'my_contracts' or generic 'status'.

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 clearly indicates this is for checking a specific contract's progress, providing a clear use case. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives like 'my_contracts' for listing all contracts.

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