getClientContracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation through the verb 'get' but provides no details on return format, error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or what 'contracts/memberships' actually includes. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundancy, making it very easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description doesn't clarify whether contracts and memberships are returned as separate entities or combined, and there is no output schema to compensate. Given the lack of annotations, more context about the returned data would be expected, making this minimally adequate.

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 schema already documents the only parameter 'clientId' with 100% coverage, and the description's phrase 'client's' aligns with that parameter. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 (client's contracts/memberships), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'getClientMemberships', which likely has similar or overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getClientMemberships' or 'getContracts'. The description offers no context on prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without enough information to choose correctly among similar tools.

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