get-data-contract-by-name

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden but only states a basic action. It fails to mention read-only nature, error handling, response behavior, 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 short sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add value without being verbose.

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 four parameters, including a complex 'extractFields' parameter, and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context on usage and behavior. It only mentions the required parameter 'fqn', leaving the rest unexplained.

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 description coverage is high (75%) and of the four parameters, three have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond 'fully qualified name' for the required parameter, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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' with the specific identifier 'fully qualified name'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list-data-contracts' and other get-by-name tools by target entity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list-data-contracts' or other get tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or context for using the tool.

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