List Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Contract Detail Items

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond these by stating that the tool returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, and specifies the API endpoint. No contradictions 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 with about 4 sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, each sentence adds value (return type, use cases, pagination, required params, API reference), and there is 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 tool complexity (list with pagination and two required params) and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to paginate, required params, and the endpoint. It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but annotations cover safety. It feels reasonably complete.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description repeats that requisition_id and project_id are required and that page and per_page control pagination, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 'Return a list of Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Contract Detail Items' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions use cases like enumerating Commitments and pagination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_requisition_subcontractor_invoice_contract_items', so clarity is slightly diminished.

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 says 'Use this to enumerate Commitments when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' This provides context on when to use, but it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling list tools. The required parameters are noted, which helps, but exclusions are missing.

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