Show Prime Change Order Batch

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Prime Contracts' and provides the endpoint pattern (GET). This is consistent with annotations and adds useful context, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 four sentences long, with the purpose in the first sentence and required parameters stated clearly. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the second sentence could be merged. The API context line provides helpful background but is not strictly necessary.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required, 2 optional for pagination), a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and required inputs. It also includes API section and endpoint, aiding understanding. However, it does not explain pagination behavior or the exact format of the returned JSON.

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% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description only reiterates that project_id and id are required, and implicitly mentions page and per_page via the endpoint. Since the schema already handles semantics, the description adds minimal value.

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 'shows the details of the Prime Change Order Batch' and 'fetches the full details of a specific Prime Contracts by its identifier.' The verb 'show' and resource 'Prime Change Order Batch' are specific. However, the description inconsistently refers to 'Prime Contracts' which may confuse the agent about the exact resource being retrieved. Sibling tools like 'show_prime_change_order' exist for a related but different 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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Prime Contracts by its identifier,' providing a clear context for when to use the tool. It lists required parameters (project_id, id) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as 'show_all_prime_change_order_batches' or 'show_prime_change_order'.

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