get_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces these with 'Read-only and non-destructive.' The additional statement 'not separately rate-limited' adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, and 'public' signals access expectations.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the operation and immediately provide usage context. There is no filler; even the rate-limiting note earns its place by adding useful behavioral information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, public contract tool, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and key behavior. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'machine-readable contract' framing, and the annotations cover safety semantics.

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?

The input schema has zero parametersaine, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the machine-readable Algenta public contract') and lists the contract's major contents, which clarifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but its unique resource name and content list make it distinguishable.

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?

Explicitly says to use it when 'an agent needs the canonical discovery, summary, query, batch, SQL report, governed filter rules, CLI, or MCP entrypoints before planning tool use,' providing a clear usage context. It does not mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for this kind of fetch tool.

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