Get Shipment Header Details

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 behavioral context beyond these: error payload semantics with common HTTP status codes (401/403/404), default behavior for company_id and project_id from config, view type defaults (Extended vs Normal), and the return shape ('single JSON object'). This gives the agent valuable runtime expectations.

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 every sentence adds useful information: purpose, view types, usage guidance, config defaults, id resolution, return type, read-only note, error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. It is well-organized, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler or tautological content.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (header info with status, delivery details, dynamic properties), how to supply parameters, error behavior, default config, and the underlying API endpoint. It even includes the Procore API version and resource path, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter names and basic descriptions, but the description enriches meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id 'default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted,' that id must resolve to an existing parent record via a list tool, and that the default view is Extended. There is a minor internal tension between saying these parameters are 'required' and saying they default when omitted, which prevents a perfect score.

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 'Returns the header information for a specific shipment including status, delivery details, and dynamic properties,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_all_shipments or get_all_shipment_line_items by emphasizing 'specific shipment' and 'header details,' and explicitly frames the use case: 'Use this when you already know which shipment header detail 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 this when you already know which shipment header detail you want and need its full field set,' and gives an explicit workflow: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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