Show An Equipment Log (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds substantial context beyond that: company_id defaults to the config value, id must reference an existing parent record, returns a single JSON object, and lists common failure HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404).

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?

Although long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, deprecation timeline, usage guidance, parameter defaults, return type, read-only safety, error codes, endpoint path, and API category. The purpose is front-loaded and the structure is logical.

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-only GET tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers intended use, parameter semantics, return shape, safety, error patterns, deprecation, and exact API endpoint. No critical 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% with basic descriptions for both id and company_id. The description adds valuable semantics like company_id defaulting and the need to resolve id first, but it contradicts the schema by saying company_id defaults when omitted while schema marks it required, reducing reliability.

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 'Return detailed information about a specific equipment log,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from list/sibling tools by specifying the use case is when you already know the exact log and need the full field set.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'Use this when you already know which equipment log you want and need its full field set.' It also gives alternatives, recommending a newer version and directing the agent to procore_search_endpoints, and instructs to resolve id with the matching list tool first.

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