dolibarr_get_contract

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 adds value by specifying that lines are included, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as response format, error handling (e.g., not found), or authentication needs.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. Every piece of information (get, contract, including lines, by ID) is essential and front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (single param, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain the return structure, pagination (if any), or what 'including its lines' entails. A richer description would improve agent understanding.

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 0%, but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it restates 'by ID' but doesn't detail expected format, constraints, or relationships). Since there is only one parameter, the lack of additional semantic context is a gap.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'contract', and the scope 'single, including its lines, by ID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dolibarr_list_contracts' which lists multiple contracts.

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 when retrieving a specific contract by ID but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., using list to find the ID first). No exclusion criteria or context-sensitive advice is given.

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