Get Contract'S Invoice Configuration

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and detailing failure modes: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' It also mentions the return type ('a single JSON object'), providing context beyond the structured fields.

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 moderately long but well-structured, moving from purpose to usage, return type, safety, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the error list could be seen as slightly verbose. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and usage.

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?

Given this is a simple GET tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, parameter resolution, return format, side-effect-free nature, and likely error conditions. It even includes the endpoint path, making it standalone and complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers both parameters with 100% coverage (project_id and contract_id as URL path identifiers). The description enhances this by noting that 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and that 'contract_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This adds operational meaning not present in the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the details of a specific Contract's Invoice Configuration.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like update_contracts_invoice_configuration by being the read-only getter. The phrase 'need its full field set' further clarifies the scope.

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 usage context: 'Use this when you already know which contract s invoice configuration you want.' It also instructs to resolve contract_id with 'the matching list tool first,' and explains the default behavior of project_id via procore_set_config. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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