Show one purchase-requisition

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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds useful return-behavior details (steps in order, grouped sections, required/run counts, printable as_text copy with boxes), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, despite the 'show' name implying it.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core output and the second the optional as_text variant. No filler, no redundancy, and the main behavior is 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?

For a simple two-parameter show tool without an output schema, the description conveys the main return contents and the only optional behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not stating ambiguity/error handling or confirming that the call has no mutating effect, but those are minor for this 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?

Input-schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds slight extra meaning by describing the as_text output as a 'blank printable copy with a box against each step,' but it contributes nothing new about purchaseRequisition beyond the schema.

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 names the exact object ('One purchase-requisition') and enumerates what is shown: its steps in order, grouped by section, required counts, and run counts. This clearly identifies the operation as a detail view for a single requisition and distinguishes it from purchase-requisition_list.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need the detailed structure of one purchase-requisition, not a list. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or points to alternatives such as purchase-requisition_list for browsing all requisitions; the only conditional guidance is parameter-level ('Pass as_text...').

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