Show Purchase Order Contract

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' a return shape ('Returns a single JSON object'), detailed error scenarios (401, 403, 404), and domain-specific tier visibility rules. This is significant behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with the main purpose upfront, followed by special notes, usage guidance, error handling, and API reference. It is slightly verbose, and the tier note about 'Work Order Contract' may be a confusing copy-paste, but each section earns its place.

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's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, return type, error behaviors, and API endpoint. It does not enumerate response fields but says 'full field set,' which is acceptable for a show operation when no output schema exists. It is reasonably 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 parameters are fully documented. The description goes further by explaining that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and that you should resolve it with the list tool first, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type descriptions. It also repeats required parameters but that doesn't hurt.

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 begins with a clear, specific action: 'Return detailed information on a Purchase Order Contract.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it is for when you already know the specific contract and need its full field set, which separates it from list, create, update, and delete operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you already know which purchase order contract you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, providing a clear prerequisite and hinting at an alternative. This goes beyond just implying usage.

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