Show Action Plan Receiver Signature

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

Beyond annotations, it states the operation is read-only and 'changes nothing in Procore,' discloses defaulting behavior for project_id, the precondition that plan_receiver_id must reference an existing parent record, and detailed error semantics (401/403/404). This significantly exceeds what annotations alone 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 dense yet well-organized: opening purpose, usage condition, default behavior, output shape, safety, error codes, required params, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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-record fetch with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers how to select the tool, prerequisites, expected return shape, error handling, and API context. No major 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 covers both parameter names/types, but the description adds critical meaning: project_id can be omitted and will default to procore_set_config, and plan_receiver_id must be resolved via the list tool. It also connects parameters to the endpoint path, which goes 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 ('Get the details of an Action Plan Receiver Signature') and clarifies it returns the full field set for a single known record. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/create/delete signature tools by resource type and the 'already know which' usage condition.

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 tells the agent to use this only when the specific signature is known and to first resolve plan_receiver_id with the matching list tool. It explains the project_id default behavior. It doesn't explicitly name alternative show_signature tools, but the parent-resource instruction is sufficient.

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