get_contractor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the ID source and that it returns 'basics', but does not add behavioral detail beyond what the annotations and schema already provide.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, resource, ID source, and an exclusion with minimal waste. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It provides the key disambiguation about ID provenance and does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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% and the parameter description already explains the ID is opaque and from a returned record/link. The tool description adds extra semantic value by specifying 'invoice contractor link' and excluding 'company ID', which helps the agent pick the correct identifier type.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('contractor basics'), and a precise ID source ('from an invoice contractor link, not a company ID'). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling get/list tools and prevents confusion over what identifier to supply.

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 when to use the tool: when you have an ID from an invoice contractor link. It also provides an explicit exclusion ('not a company ID'). It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the guidance is strong enough to route correct usage.

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