Show Correspondence

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and specifies the API endpoint and module. No contradictions, but the added value is moderate.

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 concise (a few sentences) with the purpose stated upfront. The first sentence is slightly vague but quickly clarified. No unnecessary information.

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 includes the return type (JSON object), API endpoint, required parameters, and module. However, pagination parameters (page, per_page) are not addressed, and the description implies a single resource, which may conflict with including pagination in the schema. No output schema, so more detail on response structure 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 baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters (project_id, bid_package_id, id) but does not add semantics beyond the schema (which already describes each as URL path parameters). It does not explain page and per_page parameters.

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 states the tool returns 'Correspondence detailed information' and 'fetch the full details of a specific Bid Management records by its identifier'. It specifies the resource (Correspondence/Bid Management) and action (fetch details), clearly distinguishing from list tools.

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 using this tool for a single record by ID, and lists required parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., list_correspondences for multiple records), but the context is clear enough.

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