query_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: optional fields are conditional, signer events are only included for recent contracts, and rate limiting applies. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe error/not-found behavior, which would increase transparency.

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 dense sentence that packs in the key return fields and important caveats without unnecessary filler. The opening phrase 'contract details' is slightly redundant with the explicit list that follows, but overall it remains compact and readable.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job listing expected return fields and important conditional behaviors like optional PDF/expiry and signer-event rate limiting. It could be more complete by specifying rate-limit details and what happens for invalid or draft contracts, but for a one-parameter query tool it is largely sufficient.

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 schema already fully documents the single contract_id parameter, including the GUID format and the draft-contract restriction. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 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 identifies a query/read operation for a single contract and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with list_recent_contracts or query_template, but the resource and verb are still clear.

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 retrieving a specific contract's details via contract_id, and the caveat about signer events only for recent contracts provides some context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_recent_contracts or mention the draft-contract exclusion, which lives only in the schema.

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