Get Project Currency Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: unconfigured state returns null currency fields instead of 404, error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404), and defaulting via procore_set_config. No contradiction.

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?

Every sentence is informative and earned: functionality, edge-case behavior, usage cue, defaulting, return type, read-only reassurance, error handling, required params, and API reference. Front-loaded with the primary purpose; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (single JSON object), unconfigured state semantics, error behavior, side-effect safety, and parameter defaults. Agent has everything needed to select and invoke correctly without additional lookups.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds important context on defaulting (company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values) and reinforces both are required, which is useful beyond the schema. Baseline 3 raised due to added behavioral parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific action ('Returns the currency configuration for the specified project') and clearly identifies the resource and scope (project-level, company/project IDs). Distinguishes from sibling create/update/delete/get-company-currency tools by emphasizing project scope and the 'full field set' retrieval.

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 usage context ('Use this when you already know which project currency configuration you want and need its full field set') and documents defaulting behavior for omitted IDs. Does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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