Show A Commitment Contract (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tier-dependent visibility of change order objects, error payload details (401/403/404), and explicit 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It does not contradict any 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 well-structured with clear sections (tier notes, deprecation, usage, errors) and front-loads the primary purpose. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Returns a single JSON object' after 'Returns detailed information' and 'Required parameters' duplicating the schema), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides a comprehensive picture: return type, tier-dependent field visibility, error statuses, prerequisites, deprecation status, and API context. It is fully adequate for an agent to correctly decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantic guidance for the 'id' parameter ('must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'), which goes beyond the schema's type/description. The mention of required parameters is redundant with the schema, so not a full 5.

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 detailed information on a Commitment Contract, specifies it returns a single JSON object, and distinguishes it from list tools by saying 'Use this when you already know which commitment contract you want and need its full field set.' It also notes deprecation and points to newer alternatives, further differentiating it from siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this when you already know which commitment contract you want'), a prerequisite ('id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'), and a clear exclusion/recommendation ('DEPRECATED... prefer a newer version... use procore_search_endpoints to find it'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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