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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key scoping behavior (buyer/seller filter), which is valuable. However, it omits any details about authentication requirements (beyond the apiKey param), pagination, ordering, or whether the response includes all contract statuses.

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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and there is no redundant framing or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. However, it leaves gaps: no guidance on how apiKey should be passed, no indication of response format, and no caveats about filters or limits. The minimalism is acceptable but not fully complete given the absence of annotations.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the apiKey parameter at all. Since there is one required parameter, the description should at least note that an API key is required and possibly where to provide it; this omission means the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('contracts') and scoping condition ('where you are buyer or seller'). It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_contract (creation) and get_my_notifications (notifications), leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 phrase 'your' and 'where you are buyer or seller' implies this is for retrieving the authenticated user's own contracts, giving some context for when to use it. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use it, nor any contrast with get_my_notifications or other listing-like operations.

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