Show Direct Cost Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and provides the API endpoint. This adds some context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 very concise with four short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, guiding usage, listing required params, and providing API reference. No unnecessary words.

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 states it returns a JSON object but does not detail the structure. Given no output schema, this is somewhat vague but acceptable for a simple 'show' tool. It includes the API endpoint and required parameters, making it mostly 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%, so baseline is 3. The description only repeats required parameters already in the schema ('Required parameters: project_id, id') and does not explain optional pagination parameters (page, per_page). No additional meaning is added.

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's purpose: 'Show detail on specified Direct Cost Item.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('Direct Cost Item'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_direct_cost_items' and 'create_direct_cost_item' by focusing on a single item retrieval.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Direct Costs by its identifier.' It also lists required parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or specify when not to use it, leaving some implicit understanding.

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