Get Receipt Header Details By Id

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' (echoing annotations) and detailing failure modes: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' It also clarifies the return type ('single JSON object'). This adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 lengthy but each sentence contributes useful information: purpose, view types, usage context, parameter defaults, id resolution, return type, safety, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, and the additional details (endpoint, error codes) are relevant. It is not overly verbose for the complexity of the tool.

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 tool is a single-record read with strong annotations and a complete schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, when to use it, how to resolve the id, defaults, error behavior, and API reference. It doesn't provide a detailed output schema, but the description states 'Returns a single JSON object describing the receipt header detail' and lists included fields (status, dates, dynamic properties), which is sufficient for this context. No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden and does so adequately.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the view type options ('Extended (default), Normal, and Compact'), noting that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and clarifying that id must resolve to an existing parent record. These details go beyond the schema's generic 'unique identifier' description.

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 the header information for a specific receipt including status, dates, and dynamic properties.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('receipt header details'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_paginated_receipt_details by focusing on a single record by ID. The phrase 'Use this when you already know which receipt header detail you want and need its full field set' further clarifies its purpose.

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 context: 'Use this when you already know which receipt header detail you want and need its full field set.' It also gives a resolution workflow: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It explains defaults for company_id/project_id, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though 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.