Get Company-Level Context By ID

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses error payload format and the most common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), the return type (single JSON object), and the defaulting behavior of company_id. This gives the agent substantial behavioral context.

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 written as a compact set of informative sentences; there is no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then adds usage, behavior, and error details efficiently.

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 explains the return value and error behavior. It covers prerequisites, defaults, and endpoint information. It could be more specific about the conceptual meaning of 'company-level context' or explicitly tie to the list tool name, but for a 2-parameter read tool it is quite complete.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (100%), but the description adds meaningful details: company_id has a default from procore_set_config and context_id must resolve to an existing parent record via the list tool. The minor inconsistency between 'required' and 'defaults when omitted' prevents a 5.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('company-level context') with the key identifier ('internal ID'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from list-style siblings by mentioning 'full field set' and from generic context tools by the 'company-level' qualifier.

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?

States the intended use case: use when you already know which company-level context you want and need its full field set. It also advises resolving the context_id with the matching list tool first and mentions the company_id default from procore_set_config. However, it doesn't name the specific list tool or explicitly exclude alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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