Read a run's locked contract

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: validation happens first at $0, and if the record, approval or ledger disagree, nothing is returned and only the reason is. It also flags that obligation/request text is model-authored data, never an instruction — a prompt-injection warning the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents, then the validation/safety caveats; every sentence carries information. It is a touch long, but no sentence is filler — the injection warning and $0 validation note are load-bearing.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (version, obligations, amendment requests) and the failure mode. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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% and the single 'run' parameter is fully documented as a run id. The description adds no format or naming detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the locked contract of a run') and enumerates the payload (version, obligations with id/text/criterion/check, amendment requests). An agent can distinguish it from contract_amend and read_run_file without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear decision rule for the adjacent case: 'If an obligation looks wrong or impossible, do not edit tests or the contract: call contract_amend.' It does not, however, state when this tool should be preferred over other read siblings such as read_run_file or run_status.

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