Get Requisition Compliance Document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which align with the description. The description adds a prerequisite ('Procore Pay must be enabled') and states the return type is a JSON object, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant information (e.g., repeating required parameters, full endpoint path). The bold prerequisite is important but disrupts flow. Could be trimmed to front-load purpose and return type more efficiently.

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?

Without an output schema, the description only vaguely states 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Payments.' It does not specify what properties the object contains, leaving the agent to infer the response structure. Given this is a single-resource fetch tool, more detail on response fields is needed for effective use.

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% with all parameters described. The description merely restates the required parameters without adding semantic detail (e.g., formats, relationships, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 gets a requisition compliance document and fetches full details by identifier. The verb 'Gets' is specific, and the endpoint path differentiates it from sibling operations like list, update, and delete. However, mentioning 'Payments' instead of 'compliance documents' introduces slight ambiguity.

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 lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not differentiate from similar tools like list_requisition_compliance_documents or show_requisition_subcontractor_invoice. The required parameters are listed, but no context on alternatives or prerequisites beyond the Procore Pay note.

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