get_usage_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what is returned but does not explicitly mention side effects or safety profile. As a 'getter' it is safe to assume read-only, but that is not disclosed; this is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a colon and a list of specific contents. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers the tool's scope by describing exactly what the contract contains, making it complete for a simple metadata getter.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the empty schema is already self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource: 'this server's tool usage contract.' It explicitly lists the contract's contents (argument aliases, canonical arg names, payload examples), making it distinctly different from sibling tools that manage tables, inputs, or services.

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 implies usage as a reference for understanding tool argument conventions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no guidance on scenarios like before using other tools, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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