Get Purchase Order Header Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states the tool is read-only, describes the return value as a single JSON object, and details common failure responses (401, 403, 404). It also explains defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, which is useful behavioral information.

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 typical but every sentence contributes useful information: purpose, view types, usage context, parameter behavior, return type, error handling, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, though slightly verbose.

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 read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the return format, error scenarios, parameter defaults, the need to resolve id via list tool, and the API endpoint. The only minor gap is not naming the specific list tool, but 'matching list tool' is sufficient given sibling context.

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, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the 'view' parameter (Normal default vs Extended), explaining that id must identify an existing parent record, and noting that company_id/project_id default via procore_set_config when omitted. However, there is slight inconsistency with the schema marking these as required, but the description still adds value.

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 returns header information for a purchase order, listing specific fields (status, dates, title, notes, properties). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on header details and indicating it is for a single known record, not a list.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which purchase order header detail you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, providing clear guidance and an alternative action. The default behavior of company_id and project_id is also explained.

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