aidoo_list_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List all contracts or filter by criteria' and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, return format, or default limits. This is a significant gap for a list tool with 8 parameters, so a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, it is somewhat terse and could incorporate a bit more context without sacrificing conciseness, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the various filter criteria, the purpose of extensions, or what the response looks like. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is too thin for a tool of this complexity, so a score of 2 is warranted.

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%, with all 8 parameters having descriptions (e.g., 'Vertrags-ID', 'Offset für Paging'). Per the baseline rule, when schema coverage is high, a 3 is the default. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond 'filter by criteria', so it neither enhances nor compensates for 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 clearly states the function: 'List all contracts or filter by criteria' (German). It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (contracts), and the scope 'all' distinguishes it from sibling tools like aidoo_get_contract (single contract) and aidoo_get_expiring_contracts (expiring only). However, it does not explicitly name these alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage: use this tool when you need to list contracts, optionally with filters. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for a single contract, use aidoo_get_contract) or comparisons with siblings. This is implied usage, not explicit, so it merits a 3.

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