Deel List Contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope ('from the user's Deel account') but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like pagination limits or response format. Since annotations cover the core traits, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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: the first is the core action, the second gives usage context. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at the return format, but it doesn't mention what the response contains (e.g., fields, pagination). While it's a read-only list, an agent might need to know whether it returns full contract details or just summaries. For a simple list tool, this is a moderate gap; the description could be more complete by noting the response structure.

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%: both 'limit' and 'statuses' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about parameters, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is correct as the description adds no additional value beyond 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 tool's function: 'List contracts from the user's Deel account.' This is a specific verb (List) + resource (contracts) that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like deel_get_invoices or deel_get_people. The added context about contractors and team members reinforces its purpose without ambiguity.

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 explicitly provides when to use: 'Use when the user asks about their Deel contracts, contractors, or team members managed through Deel.' This gives clear context and scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'For individual people use deel_get_people'), but the naming and description make the differentiation obvious enough.

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