get_contract_extensions

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

The description only states the basic retrieval purpose and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Since annotations are not provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency, which it fails to meet beyond the minimal action.

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, effective sentence with no wasted words. It directly communicates the purpose without extraneous detail, achieving high conciseness.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks detail on return format, data scope, or any constraints. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score is 3. The description does not add any parameter information since there are none, and no additional meaning is required beyond the schema.

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 signed contract extensions that take effect in future seasons. It uses a specific verb 'retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'contract extensions' with a qualifying condition 'signed' and 'future seasons', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_contracts' that likely deal with current contracts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 15 sibling tools, the description does not mention when this tool is appropriate or when to choose another. There is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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