jactus_get_contract_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (description, category, implementation class, simulatability, observer requirement). However, it omits any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, a brief list of returned information, a usage hint, and an Args section. It is well-structured but could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the Args into the prose.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. There are no major gaps for an informational retrieval tool.

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 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value. It explains the parameter 'contract_type' is an ACTUS code and provides concrete examples (PAM, LAM, ANN, etc.), which helps an agent understand valid values beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Get detailed information about a specific ACTUS contract type.' It then lists the returned fields and distinguishes itself from siblings like jactus_list_contracts by focusing on a single type.

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 says 'Use this to understand what a contract type represents and whether it can be simulated via MCP,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tools and the phrase 'specific contract type' imply its scope.

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