List contracts / services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the default compact summary output and the full=true flag for raw records, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action and filter list. It wastes no words and directly states the key distinction between summary and raw output.

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 there are 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output format (summary vs raw) and key filters. However, it omits mention of pagination (limit/offset) and does not reference sibling tools like count_active_services, which could be useful for comparative use cases.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving example status codes (contract_active, contract_suspended, contract_cancelled) and naming the main filters (product, client, status, brand), which helps the agent understand parameter intent beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool lists contract products/services with specific filters (product, client, status, brand) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_contract which retrieves a single contract. The verb 'list' and resource 'contract products' are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for using this tool as a list operation with filters, and mentions the full=true option for raw records. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like count_active_services or get_contract for specific use cases, nor any exclusions.

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