Show Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Contract Detail Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the behavioral profile is well-covered. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON object and mentions the HTTP method implicitly through the endpoint (GET). It does not contradict annotations, and the added context (Procore API location) is helpful but not essential. A score of 4 is appropriate as the description complements the annotations without redundancy.

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 succinct: five sentences, each serving a purpose. It starts with the action, then provides usage guidance, mentions return type, lists required parameters, and includes API context. No fluff or redundancies.

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 that there is no output schema, the description mentions the return value ('Returns a JSON object describing the requested Commitments'), which is somewhat vague but acceptable for a fetch operation. It covers the essential aspects: action, required parameters, and API context. It does not describe pagination details but the schema covers those parameters. A score of 4 indicates good completeness for a simple read tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description lists the three required parameters but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. There is no further enrichment in the description.

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's purpose: 'Show Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) Contract Detail Item' and 'fetch the full details of a specific Commitments by its identifier.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and the tool name itself is highly specific, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 says 'Use this to fetch...' which provides clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but given the tool's specificity, the context is strong enough. A score of 4 reflects that it is clear but lacks exclusionary or alternative guidance.

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