Retrieve Details For The Markup

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires admin permissions, explains error semantics (401/403/404), and explicitly reaffirms the read-only nature. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description still contributes permission and error-handling details.

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 dense but well-structured, covering purpose, supported tools, access, usage, id resolution, return format, error handling, required params, and API reference. The 'Required parameters' line is redundant with schema, but overall it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 covers essential context: what it does, when to use, prerequisites, permissions, return value, error behavior, and API location. Given there is no output schema, it adequately conveys the single-object response. It is complete for a straightforward read-only retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful semantic: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which is not captured in the schema. Other parameters are merely listed, not explained beyond the schema.

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 retrieves details for a specific Markup, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings like 'retrieve_a_list_of_markups' by emphasizing it returns the full field set for a known markup.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'when you already know which detail you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first, providing a clear alternative workflow. Mentions supported tools (Contract and Potential Change Order) and prerequisite permissions.

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