List Of Purchase Order Contracts

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, open world. The description adds useful behavioral context: pagination, pagination metadata, required project_id, and filtering support via a documentation link. 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 concise (5 sentences) and well-structured, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the link is efficiently integrated.

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 10-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the main points: purpose, pagination, filtering, required parameter, and API reference. It could be more complete if it summarized the response structure, but the absence of output schema makes this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter detail beyond the schema (notes page/per_page for pagination, mentions required project_id). It does not elaborate on filter parameters but refers to external documentation.

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 a list of Purchase Order Contracts and provides concrete use cases (paginated overview, find IDs, filter). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_commitment_contracts, but the purpose is specific and well-defined.

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 explains when to use the tool (enumerate commitments, paginated overview, filter) but does not mention when to avoid it or suggest alternatives. The link to filtering documentation is helpful but does not provide comparative guidance.

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