Show Work Order Contract

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context about tier-dependent visibility of Change Order Packages, Potential Change Orders, and Change Order Requests, which affects the response content. No contradiction with 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 mostly front-loaded with the main purpose, but the special notes on tiers add length. It could be more structured, but the essential information is there without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description explains tier-dependent response behavior, which is important. However, it does not address the pagination parameters (page, per_page) in the schema, which seem unusual for a single-resource retrieval. Without an output schema, the description could have provided more detail on the response structure beyond the tier notes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters (id, project_id) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It notes they are path and query parameters but that is redundant.

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 'Return a Work Order Contract' and specifies it fetches full details of a specific commitment by identifier. It distinguishes from listing tools like list_work_order_contracts by focusing on a single resource retrieval.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Commitments by its identifier,' which implies when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no explicit comparison to sibling tools like list_work_order_contracts.

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