Show A Signature

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), the default for project_id, and the prerequisite that id must resolve to an existing parent record. This adds significant operational context not present in 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 and information-dense without being verbose. It front-loads the purpose, then covers usage, defaults, prerequisites, safety, errors, and the API endpoint, with every sentence earning 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 GET operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers when to use, how the parameters behave, return type, safety profile, error handling, and the exact endpoint. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

While the schema covers both parameters, the description adds operational meaning: project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'unique identifier' 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 'Return Signature detailed information' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by specifying the use case 'when you already know which signature you want and need its full field set,' differentiating it from list and company-level 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives ('Use this when you already know which signature you want...') and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It also clarifies the project_id default behavior, giving concrete usage context.

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