Get Company Part Upload URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds significant context beyond that: HMAC signature validation, company_id defaulting to procore_set_config's value, error payload shape with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404), and explicit 'Read-only' statement. This richly informs the agent of auth and failure behavior.

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 dense paragraph with no wasted words; it efficiently packs purpose, usage, defaults, error behavior, and endpoint info. It could be more scannable with bullet points or clearer sentence breaks, but it remains appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states the return type ('single JSON object'), covers error handling with status codes, explains prerequisite resolution, and includes the exact endpoint. Combined with strong annotations, this leaves no major gap for a read-only retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining company_id's default behavior ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted') and that upload_id/part_number must identify existing parent records. That's beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Gets the upload URL for a specific part by upload ID and part number with signature verification (company-level).' It also scopes the tool ('company-level') and links to a concrete use case: 'Use this when you already know which company part upload URL you want and need its full field set.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_unified_part_upload_url.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which company part upload URL you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving parent records with 'the matching list tool first,' implying an alternative for discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, 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.