Get Unified Company Upload URL

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' reinforces the readOnlyHint, while also disclosing HMAC signature validation and 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 even specifies the return type ('Returns a single JSON object'), which is valuable given no output schema.

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 contributes: purpose, usage context, prerequisites, read-only guarantee, error behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. It front-loads the core action and each subsequent sentence builds on it. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema.

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?

The description covers the tool's return value ('Returns a single JSON object'), common errors (401/403/404), the read-only nature, and even the Procore API endpoint and version. It also explains the HMAC signature verification, which is key to this URL retrieval operation. For a tool with no output schema and 5 required parameters, this is thorough and complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful context by noting 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and instructing that 'upload_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' However, the company_id default comment conflicts with the schema marking it required, which creates some ambiguity.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Gets the upload URL for a company-level file by ID with signature verification.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling upload URL tools by specifying 'company-level' and 'by ID', and further clarifies its scope with 'Use this when you already know which unified company upload URL 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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this when you already know which unified company upload URL you want and need its full field set.' It also provides a prerequisite: 'upload_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It doesn't name alternative upload URL tools, but the company-level scope and the 'when you already know' phrasing give sufficient guidance.

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