Show Project Vendor

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return type ('JSON object'), the API endpoint, and the required parameters. It does not contradict annotations and provides context about the API version and resource category.

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 reasonably concise, front-loaded with purpose and usage. It includes some redundant technical details (API version, endpoint) that add length but are contextually useful. Could be slightly tighter.

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, combined with the schema and annotations, provides adequate context for using the tool. It mentions required parameters, return type, and the API endpoint. No output schema exists, but the description notes the return is a JSON object. Pagination and view parameters are covered in the schema.

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 the description does not need to add much. It mentions required parameters (project_id, id), but this already appears in the schema. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 details on a specified Project Vendor by its identifier, using the verb 'Show detail' and specifying the resource ('Project Vendor', 'Directory records'). This differentiates it from siblings like list_project_vendors or other show_* 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('fetch the full details of a specific Directory records by its identifier'), but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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