List Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Change Histories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by stating it returns a list. The description adds behavioral details about pagination metadata and required parameters, compensating well for the lack of annotation depth.

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 (about 80 words) and front-loads the purpose. It is structured into three logical sentences covering purpose, usage, and technical details. A slight improvement could be merging the API line, but it's already efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return format ('paginated JSON array of Commitments with pagination metadata'), which is sufficient for a list tool. It also includes the API endpoint and required parameters, making the tool fully understandable.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining pagination usage ('Use page and per_page to control pagination') and emphasizing required parameters. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, providing actionable guidance.

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 histories for a specific requisition (subcontractor invoice). It specifies the resource, action, and scope, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_requisition_subcontractor_invoice_change_order_items by focusing on change histories.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to enumerate Commitments when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear given the dedicated endpoint.

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