List Potential Change Orders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: returns paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, mentions required parameter project_id, and endpoint. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise (4-5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and includes a link, usage guidance, return format, and endpoint. Each sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 fully described in schema, no output schema), the description covers return format (paginated JSON array with metadata), required parameter, and filtering capabilities via link. It is complete enough for a list tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions project_id, page, per_page, and refers to filtering documentation. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 verb and resource: 'Return a list of all Potential Change Orders (PCO).' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns all PCOs and mentions paginated overview and filtering, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like list_potential_change_order_line_items.

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 provides direct usage guidance: 'Use this to enumerate Change Orders when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It gives context but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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