get_employee_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and the 404 semantics note is genuinely valuable non-obvious behavior — it prevents an agent from misdiagnosing a bad employee ID. It stops short of covering permissions, rate limits, or what the payload contains, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the 404 caveat placed immediately after. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description would ideally say what the contract payload contains (fields, structure) and whether reads require scoping to the account. The 404 note covers the most likely failure mode, but the return-value side is absent.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single employeeId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, source, or example detail beyond confirming that an employee ID is the input key.

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 ("Get the contract details of an employee") and narrows scope to contracts, which separates it from get_employee and update_employee_contract. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name: an agent can infer this is the read path for contract data. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_employee, nor any precondition such as the employee having a contract, though the 404 note hints at that case.

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