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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing that values may be masked on free tiers (teaser), specifies exact daily quotas for different account types, and states the tool returns isError with instructions on quota exceed. This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 concise: first sentence states core functionality, second sentence covers edge cases (masking, quotas, error handling). Every sentence is informative with no waste.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the return structure (header and specification fields), notes data masking behavior, and specifies quota limits. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 single required parameter uniqId is described as 'internal ID of contract (cctUniqID from search/tender card)', adding practical context on how to obtain the ID. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal but useful enrichment.

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 tool returns the contract card by internal ID (cctUniqID), specifying both header fields (registry number, customer, supplier, price, deadlines) and specification positions (name, OKPD2/KTRU, quantity, price, sum). It distinguishes from siblings like search_contract_specs by targeting a single contract retrieval.

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 provides clear usage context including quota limits for anonymous, free, and paid tiers. It implicitly tells when to use (to fetch a specific contract by ID) and warns about masked data on free tiers. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like search_contract_specs or get_tender.

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