Get Material Details By ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial context: defaults for company_id/project_id (from procore_set_config), the need for an existing parent record, the single-JSON-object return shape, and error payload details with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404). It also explicitly reaffirms 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' This goes well beyond annotation coverage.

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 longer than the calibration examples but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage condition, default behavior, return type, error handling, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the flow is logical. Could be tightened slightly by removing the redundant 'Required parameters' sentence since the schema already lists required fields.

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 covers return shape (single JSON object), failure modes (error payload with HTTP statuses), prerequisites (id resolution, defaults), and even the endpoint path and API version. For a 4-parameter read-only getter, this is complete and self-sufficient. It gives the agent everything needed to invoke correctly and interpret failures.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning for id ('must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first') and mentions defaults for company_id/project_id. However, the claim that company_id/project_id default to config values when omitted conflicts with the schema marking them required, creating ambiguity rather than cleanly enhancing 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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Returns the details of a specific material.' It further clarifies scope by mentioning 'full field set' and contrasts with the list operation, making it clear this is the detail-by-ID variant. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials and show_material.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which material detail you want and need its full field set.' It also tells the agent to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first,' which is an explicit alternative. However, it does not name a specific sibling tool and does not state when not to use it beyond the implicit 'not for listing.'

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