List External RFI Revisions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses failure modes (401, 403, 404), return format (single JSON object), the read-only nature, and the endpoint path. It also notes that company_id and project_id default from config, adding meaningful behavioral context not present in annotations alone.

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 detailed but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, id resolution, defaults, return format, read-only nature, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. It is longer than minimal but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: usage, defaults, id resolution, return format, read-only behavior, common error responses, and API endpoint. It does not list the actual fields in the returned JSON object, but that omission is partially mitigated by the 'full field set' wording and the API reference.

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 already fully describes parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to configured values when omitted, and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the list tool, enriching semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 information about specified External RFI revisions with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('External RFI revisions'). It differentiates from siblings by noting it is for when you already know the revision and need its full field set, distinguishing it from list-based tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know which external RFI revision you want.' It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, and explains default behavior for company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, offering clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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