Show A Signature

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description clarifies the operation is read-only and adds error-handling context (401/403/404 status codes) and the default behavior for project_id. It also discloses the return format as a single JSON object, which is valuable since no output schema is provided. These details align with the annotations rather than contradict 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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose and usage in the first two sentences. It packs essential details (defaults, return type, error semantics, endpoint) into roughly 90 words without redundancy. Every sentence contributes to the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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 read-only single-resource retrieval with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to get the required id, the default project_id behavior, return shape, error patterns, and API endpoint. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, but the description adds the crucial meaning that id refers to the signature (parent record) and must be resolved via the list tool. It also notes that project_id defaults to the configured value, which goes beyond the schema's 'required' label. However, this creates a minor ambiguity about whether project_id is truly required, keeping this from a 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 opens with a specific action ('Return Signature detailed information') and immediately clarifies the intended use case ('when you already know which signature you want and need its full field set'). It also distinguishes itself from list tools by instructing to resolve the ID with the matching list tool first, and the project_id parameter clearly scopes it to project-level signatures.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you already know which signature you want and need its full field set.' It also directs the user to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which is a clear reference to an alternative tool and workflow. The mention of project_id defaulting to procore_set_config provides additional context on when configuration is required.

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