Get Markup Stamp

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly says 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', describes defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, and details failure modes with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the purpose and usage. It includes the endpoint and error info, which is useful but adds length. All sentences contribute value; no unnecessary fluff.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values. It states 'Returns a single JSON object describing the markup stamp' and 'full field set' in usage. Combined with annotations and error information, this is reasonably complete for a get-by-id tool, though it could list the specific fields returned.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted (though the schema marks them required, which may be a minor inconsistency), and that viewer_doc_id and markup_id must identify existing parent records. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 'Get Markup Stamp image' and explains it returns a single JSON object describing the markup stamp. It distinguishes itself from list tools by specifying 'Use this when you already know which markup stamp you want and need its full field set.'

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 clear usage context: use when you already know the stamp and need its full field set. It also gives a prerequisite instruction to resolve viewer_doc_id and markup_id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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