List purchase orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering ("newest first") and the concrete status vocabulary (Draft, Submitted, Approved, Received, Closed), which are behaviors the annotations cannot convey.

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 returned-field list is front-loaded and the second paragraph carries the operational detail. Slightly redundant in repeating the field list across both paragraphs, but nothing superfluous.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and ordering, and points to the detail sibling. Pagination semantics (limit default 25, max 100) live in the schema and are not echoed, which is a minor gap for a list 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 coverage is 75% and cursor/search/project_id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that project and search filtering exist and says nothing about limit or cursor, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 the Contractor Foreman Purchase Orders list) and enumerates what comes back: PO number, supplier, project, dates, total, status. It also explicitly separates itself from get_purchase_order, which supplies line items.

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?

"Filter by project or search" gives concrete selection guidance, and "get_purchase_order adds the line items" routes the agent to the right sibling when detail is needed. No explicit when-not conditions, but the list-vs-detail split is clear.

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