Show Action Plan Approver Signature

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description discloses read-only behavior, return type ('Returns a single JSON object'), error payload structure with common HTTP statuses, and the defaulting behavior of project_id. This adds valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence adds useful information: purpose, usage, parameter defaults, prerequisite resolution, return type, safety, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, though it is longer than strictly necessary.

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 read-by-ID operation, the description is fully complete: it states what it does, when to use it, what parameters are required, the default for project_id, the prerequisite for plan_approver_id, the return shape, safety, error scenarios, and the underlying API endpoint. No meaningful gaps remain.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and that plan_approver_id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. This complements 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 'Get the details of an Action Plan Approver Signature,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from the list tool ('when you already know which... need its full field set') and from create/delete siblings by explicitly stating 'Read-only.'

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 provides usage context: 'Use this when you already know which action plan approver signature you want and need its full field set.' It also names the alternative workflow, 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' and describes failure modes (401/403/404) to guide troubleshooting.

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