Get A Single Person

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

Beyond the already-present annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' describes error payloads with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and explains the prerequisite that person_id must identify an existing parent record. However, the company_id default/required contradiction is a transparency flaw that prevents a perfect score.

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 information-dense with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then systematically covers usage, parameters, return format, side effects, error behavior, and endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical and scannable.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what is returned, when to use it, how to resolve person_id, likely error statuses, and the exact API endpoint. The only minor gap is the company_id default/required contradiction, which introduces avoidable ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description enhances this by adding that company_id can default from procore_set_config (despite schema requiring it) and that person_id must be resolved via a list tool first. These are genuinely useful additions, but the internal inconsistency about company_id's optionality slightly undermines clarity.

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 opens with 'Returns single Person object,' giving a clear verb+resource pair. It further differentiates from sibling list tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which person you want and need its full field set,' making the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you already know which person you want') and instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which implies an alternative workflow. However, the statement that company_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' conflicts with the later 'Required parameters: company_id, person_id' and the schema's required field, creating mild confusion about whether company_id is truly optional.

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