List Work Order Contract Detail Line Items

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already disclose behavioral traits. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, but this is already implied by the schema. 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 with 4 sentences. It includes the API endpoint, which may be helpful but is not essential. Overall, it is front-loaded and 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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and pagination but lacks details on filter parameters (filters__id, filters__line_item_id). It also does not explain the relationship between line items and Commitments.

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 mentions required parameters and pagination controls, but these are already described in the schema. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 lists detail line items on a work order contract and mentions enumerating Commitments. The verb 'List' and resource 'Detail Line Items' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_work_order_contract_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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to enumerate Commitments when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' This helps the agent decide when to use the tool, though it lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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