Show Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Change Order Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and provides the API endpoint. It does not contradict annotations, and it adds minimal context beyond what annotations provide. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., error handling, rate limits).

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 brief and front-loaded with the action. However, it redundantly repeats the tool title and states 'Required parameters' which is already evident from the schema. Overall, it is fairly concise but not maximally efficient.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description indicates the return type ('JSON object') and includes the Procore API reference. It covers the essential purpose and required inputs. For a simple read operation, this is mostly complete, though it could mention error contexts or pagination (pagination params exist in schema but are not explained).

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%, with all parameters described in the schema. The description mentions required parameters but adds no further detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not provide additional semantics 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 the tool fetches full details of a specific Commitments by identifier. The verb 'Show' and resource 'Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Change Order Item' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_requisition_subcontractor_invoice_change_order_item' (which is the same name, actually). There are many similar show tools, but no explicit distinction is made.

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 provides basic usage ('fetch the full details') and lists required parameters, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool.

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