Retrieve A Project Proposal By Id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and lists required parameters, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. 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 two sentences plus metadata (endpoint, required params). Every sentence adds value, and it front-loads the purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description does not mention pagination or the optional page/per_page parameters, despite the schema including them. It also lacks explanation of what 'Estimating records' are. For a tool with many siblings, more context on the domain would be helpful.

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 the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats the required parameters without adding meaning beyond the schema descriptions (e.g., 'URL path parameter — unique identifier'). No additional value.

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 (retrieve/fetch) and resource (project proposal/Estimating records), and includes API version and endpoint details. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'retrieve_a_project_proposal_by_id_company_v2_0', which likely serves the same purpose with a different API version.

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 implies usage for fetching full details of a specific proposal, but does not mention when not to use it, alternative tools (e.g., listing tools), or version differences with the v2_0 sibling. Guidance is minimal.

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