autotask_search_contracts

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('search') but does not confirm idempotency or safety. No annotations are provided. There is no mention of pagination, result limits, or ordering, leaving behavioral assumptions unclear.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly sparse. It lacks details that would improve usability without being significantly longer. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema, the description should at least mention what is returned (e.g., list of contracts). The schema covers parameters well, but the description does not compensate for missing output specification. It is minimally adequate for a simple search tool.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'optional filters', which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does 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 (search) and resource (contracts) with optional filters. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by targeting contracts specifically, but does not explicitly differentiate from other search tools for different entities.

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 like autotask_search_projects or autotask_search_invoices. The description lacks context for selection among many search tools.

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