get-data-contract-by-name

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 states the retrieval purpose. It does not mention that the tool can retrieve deleted contracts (as indicated by the 'include' parameter), permissions required, or any side effects.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat complete for a simple retrieval tool but lacks details on the output format, behavior of the 'include' parameter, and any version-specific nuances beyond 'OM 1.12+'.

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 75% description coverage. The description adds 'by fully qualified name' which reinforces the 'fqn' parameter but adds no further semantic value for other parameters. The schema already contains detailed descriptions for 'extractFields', so the tool description does not need to repeat it.

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 action (Get) and the resource (Data Contract by fully qualified name), also noting the version requirement (OM 1.12+). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get-data-contract-latest-result' and 'validate-data-contract'.

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?

It is implied that this tool is used when you have the fully qualified name of a data contract. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use it vs alternatives like 'list-data-contracts' or 'get-data-contract-latest-result', or when not to use it.

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