Show An Equipment Make (Deprecated)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: deprecation dates, read-only assurance, and specific HTTP error codes (401/403/404). However, the sentence claiming 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' contradicts the schema's required-parameter list and the later 'Required parameters: company_id, id', creating ambiguity about whether the parameter is actually optional.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organizes deprecation, usage, parameters, return, read-only, errors, and API context logically. It is somewhat lengthy and includes redundant statements (e.g., 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' repeats readOnlyHint), but each sentence generally adds useful information.

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 endpoint with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return type, error behavior, deprecation, and prerequisites. The main gap is the inconsistent parameter documentation for company_id, which slightly undermines completeness but does not omit critical operational details.

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 descriptions are minimal (just 'URL path parameter'), so the description adds meaning by explaining that company_id can be defaulted from config (though inconsistent) and that id must reference an existing parent record, to be resolved with a list tool first. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and this extra guidance lifts it to 4 despite the company_id contradiction.

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 detailed information about a specific equipment make' and specifies the exact endpoint, making the operation unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is for retrieving a single full-field record when you already know which equipment make you want, versus list/create/update/delete alternatives.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know which equipment make you want and need its full field set' and directs users to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It also addresses the deprecation by advising to prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints to find it, which is clear alternative guidance.

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