Get sub-contract

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the context they cannot: that paid and balance return null from this endpoint, that scope of work comes back as HTML exactly as saved, and that line items include quantity, unit cost, total and cost code. The nullability caveat is exactly the kind of trait an agent would otherwise misread as missing data.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the one-line summary followed by the read semantics and the sibling comparison. No filler sentences; every clause carries either scope or a field-level fact.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does: the field groups returned, the HTML format of scope of work, and which fields are null. For a single-parameter read tool this is complete enough to call correctly and interpret the response.

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% and the schema description already says 'sub_contract_id from list_sub_contracts'; the description restates the same provenance without adding format, sourcing, or error behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads one Contractor Foreman sub-contract by sub_contract_id') and enumerates the payload: subcontractor, amounts, retainage, scope of work, items. The second sentence explicitly positions it against list_sub_contracts ('what list_sub_contracts gives plus...'), so the agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is clear from context: this is the detail fetch complementing list_sub_contracts, and the note that paid/balance are null here while list_sub_contracts has them is an implicit routing rule for financial totals. It stops short of an explicit 'use X when / do not use this when' statement, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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