Show Work Order Contract Line Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. Description adds valuable context: conditional inclusion of change event line item info based on association and user permissions, and that it returns a JSON object. 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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, but includes repetitive mentions of 'Commitments' and unnecessary details like the Procore API category. Could be more concise.

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?

While the description covers primary purpose and a behavioral note, it does not explain optional parameters (e.g., view, page, per_page) or return structure, which would be helpful given no output schema. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The description lists required parameters but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. 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 it returns a specific line item from a work order contract using a GET endpoint. It distinguishes from listing by saying 'return a specific' and mentions required identifiers. However, it confuses by referring to 'Commitments' when it's actually a line item resource.

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 implies usage for fetching full details of a single line item, but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., list for multiple items) or when not to use it. It lists required parameters but lacks comparative guidance.

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