Get Estimating Settings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable failure semantics (401/403/404) and return type (single JSON object), which are not in the annotations.

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 roughly five sentences, covering purpose, usage, defaults, safety, errors, and endpoint. While a bit verbose, each sentence adds useful context and the structure is logical. It could be trimmed, but it's far from bloated.

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 the simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return type, error handling, default behavior, and endpoint. It is complete for the complexity level.

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 schema already documents company_id well (100% coverage). The description adds context about defaulting from procore_set_config, but this contradicts the schema's required field and the description's own 'Required parameters: company_id.' This mixed message reduces the reliability of the added semantic.

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 'Returns the Estimating Settings for the company' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'including project status/stage name mappings' to define scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use this when you already know which estimating setting you want...'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use this when you already know which estimating setting you want and need its full field set.' Also mentions company_id defaults from procore_set_config, which frames the invocation context. Does not explicitly state exclusions, but the phrasing implies it's not for discovery.

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