List Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Contract Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds marginal behavioral context. It mentions paginated JSON array and pagination metadata, and correctly notes required parameters. 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, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses only necessary sentences. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a list tool without output schema, the description explains the return type (paginated JSON array), pagination metadata, and required parameters. It also provides the API endpoint for context. It is nearly complete for selecting and invoking this 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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions, but the description adds context about pagination control (page, per_page), required parameters, and the API endpoint. This goes beyond the schema, adding value for agent selection.

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 Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Contract Items and mentions use cases like paginated overview and ID lookup. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_requisition_subcontractor_invoice_contract_detail_items or show_requisition_subcontractor_invoice_contract_item.

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 advises when to use the tool ('enumerate Commitments', 'paginated overview', 'find IDs', 'filter') but does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives such as detail listing or single item retrieval.

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