Show Correspondence

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds only that it returns a JSON object, which is already implied. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, authentication needs, rate limits) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is relatively concise (three sentences) with purpose front-loaded. However, it redundantly lists required parameters already in schema and includes full API endpoint, which could be trimmed. Still efficient overall.

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 no output schema, description mentions 'JSON object describing the requested Bid Management records', which suffices. It does not mention optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) or their effect, but schema covers them. Annotations provide good behavioral context, so description is largely complete.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description merely repeats required parameters without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema documents parameters adequately.

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 returns detailed correspondence information for a specific Bid Management record by identifier. It uses specific verbs ('Return', 'fetch') and resource ('Correspondence', 'Bid Management records'), and distinguishes from sibling 'show_correspondence_project' by specifying company-level scope.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details...' but does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives like 'show_correspondence_project'. It implies usage for company-level records but lacks explicit exclusions or contextual alternatives.

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