Show Change Order Package

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's role is lower. It adds that the tool returns a JSON object and mentions required parameters, but does not disclose pagination behavior (page/per_page params) or any other edge cases. The description adds moderate value beyond 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 4 sentences, starting with the title repeated unnecessarily. It includes both purpose and API details. Could be more concise by removing the first sentence and integrating required params into the purpose statement. Structurally adequate but not tight.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose, it omits explanation of optional parameters like contract_id, page, and per_page. For a 'show' endpoint, the presence of pagination parameters is unusual and needs clarification. Without output schema, the description should also hint at the response structure beyond 'JSON object'. The description feels incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 each parameter described. The description repeats that id and project_id are required but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the optional parameters (contract_id, page, per_page) in the description, so no added 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 it fetches full details of a specific Change Order by identifier. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'Change Orders' are clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_change_order_packages' or 'show_change_order_request', though the purpose is distinct enough for an agent.

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 gives the basic use case but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list vs show, or update). No when-not or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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