get_estimate_detailsRetrieve complete estimate details by internal ID, including line items, assigned techs, internal notes, and payment records. Use to view all information for a single estimate.
Get complete details for a single estimate by internal ID, including line items, techs, notes, and payments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| estimate_id | Yes | Internal numeric estimate ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context by disclosing the return composition (line items, techs, notes, payments). It does not cover error cases or auth, but these are less critical given the annotations.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and the trailing list of included content earns its place. No filler or redundancy.
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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description is complete: the schema documents the only input and the description enumerates the return content in the absence of an output schema. Sibling tools further contextualize how it fits into estimate workflows.
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 single parameter estimate_id is already described as an internal numeric estimate ID. The description's 'by internal ID' reinforces this but adds no new semantic information, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get complete details for a single estimate by internal ID.' The phrase 'single estimate' and the listed sub-resources (line items, techs, notes, payments) distinguish it from search_estimates and create_estimate without needing to open schemas.
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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you need the full detail record for one estimate and already have its internal numeric ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_estimates for finding IDs, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.