Show Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses read-only behavior ('it changes nothing in Procore'), return format ('single JSON object'), and specific error statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds meaningful operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value (usage, prerequisites, return, errors, API reference), though 'Required parameters: id, project_id' is redundant with the schema and could be omitted.

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?

For a simple show-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers return type, failure modes, read-only behavior, and endpoint context. It does not elaborate on the view parameter's impact, but the schema covers that, so the overall context is sufficient.

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 schema already documents all parameters, but the description adds value by stating that id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via the list tool first. This gives the agent an important prerequisite beyond the schema's type and required flags.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) on a specified Project.' It further differentiates from siblings by stating 'Use this when you already know which requisition you want and need its full field set,' distinguishing it from list and detail variants.

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 ('when you already know which requisition you want and need its full field set') and advises resolving the id via the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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