Get Calendar By ID (V2.1)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals significant behavioral details: V2.1 returns only source intervals and exposes availability JSON on Exception intervals, defaults company_id/project_id to procore_set_config values, requires an existing parent record, and details error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404). This adds substantial context beyond what annotations provide.

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 but logically structured: purpose, version behavior, alternatives, defaults, return type, error handling, and endpoint. It is longer than strictly necessary but each sentence contributes distinct value. Front-loaded with the core purpose, though a minor redundancy exists with 'Read-only' repeating the annotation.

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 covers the return type, failure modes, parameter defaults, prerequisite resolution, and even the exact Procore endpoint. The agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results without external context.

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% with each parameter described as a URL path parameter. The description adds valuable semantics: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and calendar_id must identify an existing parent record. It also explicitly lists required parameters, reinforcing the schema while adding default behavior and a prerequisite condition.

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 'Get a single calendar by id' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from list tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which calendar you want and need its full field set,' and adds version-specific behavior (V2.1 source intervals). This is more specific than a generic get-by-id description and differentiates from siblings like list_calendars_v2_1.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when you already know which calendar you want') and provides a direct alternative: 'Use the Show Project API when you need the project time zone.' It also gives prerequisite guidance (resolve calendar_id with the matching list tool) and contextual defaults for company_id/project_id, giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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