get_contracts

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states API limitations: 'The API does not expose service time or team control status' and details the implications for contract interpretation. This high transparency is critical for correct tool usage.

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 well-structured: a clear opening sentence for purpose, followed by important caveats. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. While not minimalistic, it avoids unnecessary words and is efficient for its informative content.

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 tool's complexity (API limitations, nuanced contract interpretation) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides essential context. It explains the meaning of different contract types and how to infer team control. It is comprehensive but could be slightly more complete regarding edge cases (e.g., option years).

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'team_id' and 'player_id'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description's value is in output interpretation, not parameter semantics.

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 'Retrieve all current and active player contracts.' The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'player contracts' are specific, and the context of 'current and active' clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_contract_extensions' which focus on extensions.

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 usage guidance, especially regarding the interpretation of 1-year contracts. It warns that a 1-year contract does not necessarily mean free agency and advises using salary level and player age to infer team control. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and how to interpret results, effectively differentiating scenarios.

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