list_federal_drug_contracts

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the subject matter and available filters but does not mention that the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or any limitations or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure 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 very short, front-loading the core subject and then listing filters. However, the filter clause essentially restates schema property names, so the wording is concise but not as information-dense as its length could allow. It is structured acceptably but under-delivers.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves an agent under-informed. It does not describe the shape of returned contracts, how filters interact, default limits, or data freshness. For a list tool with three optional filters, this is missing key context needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It names all three (agency, company_id, limit) and labels them as 'Filtre', which adds the role of filters, but it provides no meaning, format, or examples for any of them. This adds little beyond the schema property names.

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 identifies the resource: 'Federalne kontrakty na lieky' (federal drug contracts) and pins it to PSC 6505, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on shortages and recalls. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' in the description itself, though the tool name provides it, so it falls just short of the 5-bar.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_drug_shortages, list_drug_recalls, or other siblings. It only lists filters and offers no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual triggers, so the agent must infer applicability from the resource name alone.

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