Get Contract Compliance Document

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses error payload behavior: 'commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' It also states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and the Procore Pay requirement, adding useful operational 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?

Well-front-loaded with the core action and use case, then defaults, return, error semantics, and API location. Slightly verbose due to repeating required parameters and endpoint details already in schema, but each section earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, when to use, prerequisites, defaults, return type, error modes, and endpoint location. Without an output schema, it could elaborate on response fields, but for a single-document GET with strong annotations this is nearly 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 merely label parameters as 'URL path parameter'; the description adds value by clarifying that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted and that contract_id/id must identify existing parent records. This goes beyond the schema's generic labels.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Gets' with the resource 'contract compliance document' and adds the use-case 'when you already know which contract compliance document you want and need its full field set', distinguishing it from the list sibling. It clearly states it returns a single JSON object for one known document.

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: 'Use this when you already know which contract compliance document you want and need its full field set.' Also instructs to resolve contract_id and id with the matching list tool first, providing prerequisite guidance. Implicitly directs away from list tool.

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