Show Compliance Documents For A Contract.

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about pagination (page and per_page parameters) and that the response includes pagination metadata. No contradictions 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, consisting of a few clear sentences. It front-loads the main action and provides essential details without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return type (paginated JSON array of Commitments with pagination metadata). It also includes the Procore API endpoint for reference. While mostly complete, it could mention the structure of Commitment objects or any related error handling.

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 description is not strictly necessary for explaining parameters. However, it adds value by stating that page and per_page control pagination and that the response includes metadata, which helps agents understand the parameters' role.

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 compliance documents for a contract and fetches full details of Commitments. The purpose is well-defined but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like list_commitments or other show endpoints.

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 explains to use this tool to fetch commitment details and specifies required parameters. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or compare with alternative tools, e.g., when to use list_commitments instead.

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