get_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the return value ('Returns the full ContractModel with all relationships'), but does not address side effects, error handling, permissions, or any destructive behavior. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, providing usage context, and indicating output and alternatives. No superfluous words or details, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 that schema description coverage is 0% and there is an output schema (though not shown), the description partially compensates by detailing the return content (inheritance, functions, etc.). However, it does not explain how to use the parameters (especially include_functions) or cover potential error states, making it adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'request' with nested properties (path, contract_key, include_functions). Schema description coverage is 0% per context signals, meaning the schema descriptions are not considered. The description adds some meaning by listing what is returned (inheritance, functions, etc.), hinting at the effect of include_functions, but does not explicitly document parameter usage or syntax beyond what is in 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 uses the specific verb 'Gets' and resource 'detailed metadata for a specific contract', listing concrete elements like inheritance hierarchy, functions, state variables, and events. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'get_contract_source' for source code and implying it's used after listing or searching.

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 states when to use ('when you need complete information about a contract after finding it with list_contracts or search_contracts') and provides an alternative for source code ('For source code, use get_contract_source instead.'). However, it does not explicitly mention other contexts where the tool should not be used, though the guidance is clear enough.

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