Show A Compliance Document.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states the return type ('single JSON object'), confirms safety ('changes nothing in Procore'), and enumerates typical failure modes (401/403/404). This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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?

Every sentence contributes value: purpose, usage context, parameter defaults, return type, read-only guarantee, error semantics, and API endpoint. It is dense but well-structured, with no repetition. The front-loaded purpose and usage make it easy to scan quickly.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return format ('single JSON object'). It covers parameter resolution, defaulting, error conditions, and the exact API route. For a three-param GET tool with exhaustive annotations, this description leaves no significant gap.

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 increases clarity by explaining the default behavior for project_id (from procore_set_config) and the requirement that contract_id and id must reference existing parent records. It also explicitly lists the required parameters. This adds meaningful guidance 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show a specific compliance document by id.' It distinguishes itself from list tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which compliance document you want and need its full field set.' This clearly identifies the tool's scope and contrasts it with 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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'when you already know which compliance document you want.' It also gives preconditions for parent records: 'must identify existing parent records — resolve them with the matching list tool first.' This provides clear exclusions and points to the alternative workflow.

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