my_contracts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states it's a list operation but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, whether it is read-only, what it returns, or that user_id is required. The partial status list is also a behavioral inconsistency.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action and resource.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks key details: it omits the required user_id, does not mention the optional status filter, and incompletely lists statuses. These gaps are meaningful for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no new meaning and actively misleads by listing only active, completed, and expired while the schema includes in_progress and voided. This could cause an agent to believe only those three statuses are valid, making the description a negative contribution.

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 lists contracts, using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like browse_offers and get_offer. However, it lists only three of the five possible statuses, which is slightly imprecise but not severely misleading.

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 implies the tool is for viewing your contracts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like check_progress or status. It does not mention filtering or exclusions, leaving usage context implicit.

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