Show A Signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' The description adds valuable context about default company_id behavior, error payloads (401/403/404), and endpoint path, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 moderately concise and information-dense, but it could be trimmed slightly. The first sentence is strong, and the rest provides useful context (company_id default, resolution workflow, read-only guarantee, error handling). The inclusion of the full Procore API path and endpoint is helpful but slightly verbose; overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only show tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, prerequisites, default behavior, read-only guarantee, and common failure modes. It's not missing critical context, though it could theoretically mention the return format in more detail, but that's not necessary for a straightforward GET endpoint.

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% for both parameters (company_id and id), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds modest context by noting company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and id must identify an existing parent record, but it doesn't deeply elaborate beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions provide.

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 'Return Signature detailed information' with a specific verb (Return) and resource (Signature), and it distinguishes this show tool from other sibling tools like list_signatures_project and delete_a_signature by emphasizing 'when you already know which signature you want and need its full field set.' It also identifies the precise API endpoint.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which signature you want and need its full field set' and instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' — this provides clear usage guidance and a preferred workflow. It also differentiates from list-style sibling tools by scoping to single-record retrieval.

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