Show Purchase Order Contract Detail Line Item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and lists required parameters, but does not significantly expand on behavioral traits beyond the 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 at four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently includes usage guidance, return format, required parameters, and API reference. No unnecessary information.

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 rich annotations and schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, usage, return type, required parameters, and endpoint. It lacks mention of pagination parameters (page, per_page) but those are in the schema. Without an output schema, 'Returns a JSON object' is somewhat vague, but acceptable.

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 well-documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the required parameters without adding new semantic context. Baseline 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 verb 'Return' and resource 'Detail Line Item in a specific Purchase Order Contract', and specifies fetching by identifier. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'show_purchase_order_contract_line_item', which may cause confusion, but the purpose is well-defined.

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 advises using this tool to fetch full details of a specific Commitments by identifier, implying a singular fetch. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or contrast with list tools like 'list_purchase_order_contract_detail_line_items'.

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