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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload includes items, custom fields and approval steps, which is genuinely useful context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior for a missing IDN.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the resource and identifier, followed by the endpoint reference. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the returned sections (items, custom fields, approval steps). It falls short only on failure modes and whether the IDN must match exactly.

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 100% and the schema itself explains that idn is the company's own document number, not the internal id. The description only restates "by IDN" and adds no format, casing, or lookup-failure guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("One purchase requisition by IDN") and lists the embedded content returned (items, custom fields, approval steps). The singular "one ... by IDN" implicitly contrasts with precoro_list_purchase_requisitions, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single requisition when you have its IDN. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as the list tool or other document getters (invoice, purchase order).

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