public_contracts

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Retrieve' which implies a read operation but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior. It omits information about authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficiently transparent for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loads the key information: action, resource, and scope. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context such as pagination details or the fact that results are limited to public contracts only. Given the tool's complexity, additional information would enhance completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('regionId' and 'page') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. According to the scoring rule, the baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 'Retrieve public contracts for a specific region in EVE Online' clearly states the action (retrieve), the resource (public contracts), and the scope (for a specific region). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'region_orders' which are about market orders rather than 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. For example, it does not indicate that this tool returns contracts only for the given region and that other tools exist for more specific filtering.

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