Get requisition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes items, logs, and linked payment vouchers. No contradictions observed.

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 a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is clear and front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (get one requisition by ID) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the return content (items, logs, linked vouchers). However, it could clarify the role of logLimit and includeLogs parameters.

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 0%, so the tool description must compensate. The description does not explain parameters (requisitionId, includeLogs, logLimit) beyond what the schema provides. It mentions logs are included but not how includeLogs and logLimit control them.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'requisition', and specifies included sub-resources 'items, logs, and linked payment vouchers'. It distinguishes from listing tools like limu_list_requisitions and other get tools.

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 use when a single requisition with details is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Siblings like limu_list_requisitions for listing and other get tools for different resources are not mentioned.

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