List Change Order Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by detailing that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, and mentions filtering capabilities. 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 several sentences but each sentence adds value: purpose, filtering link, usage guidance, return type, pagination, required params, API reference. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential aspects: it explains the return type (paginated JSON array), mentions pagination metadata, and lists required parameters. It references external documentation for filtering, which is acceptable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description highlights required parameters (project_id, contract_id) and mentions pagination controls (page, per_page), but adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a list of Change Order Requests for a specific Contract in a Project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_change_order_packages) by specifying the scope (to a specific Contract in a Project).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to enumerate Change Orders when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.

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