list_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful structural trait — 'one per address' — but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether an empty result is possible. For an unannotated read tool this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 tight sentence with the resource and its distinguishing scope front-loaded, and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter list tool.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (contracts with debt and due date), which is the core need. It is adequate but omits usage context and behavioral constraints, so it is minimum-viable rather than complete.

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%, so bpNumber's meaning and its default to the signed-in customer are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (electricity contracts), its scope (the customer's, one per address), and the key data it carries (debt, due date). This lets an agent distinguish it from list_invoices or list_meters. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'retrieve/list', but the noun phrase plus the tool name make the purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_customer, list_invoices, or get_electric_bill, and no prerequisites or context of use are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the returned fields.

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