Show Potential Change Orders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which clearly indicate the tool is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior). It repeats the required parameters and return type, which are already in the schema and 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 with three sentences. It front-loads the action ('Return detailed information...') and then provides essential context (required parameters, API reference). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 that annotations fully cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent), the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and required inputs. It mentions the return type ('JSON object'), which compensates for the lack of an explicit output schema. The API and endpoint information are helpful for developers. The description is complete for a read operation tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter (id, project_id, contract_id, page, per_page) already has a clear description. The description only reiterates the required parameters without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: returning detailed information about a specific Potential Change Order (PCO) by its identifier. It uses specific verbs ('Return detailed information', 'fetch the full details') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_potential_change_orders' by focusing on a single resource.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to fetch details of a specific PCO by identifier. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives (like the list tool). The context implies that for multiple PCOs, one should use a list tool, but this is not explicit.

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