Show An Equipment Model (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and details error return semantics (401/403/404), deprecation removal dates, and default behavior of company_id. This adds significant context not available from annotations alone.

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 with useful information: purpose, deprecation, usage criteria, parameter defaults, read-only nature, error codes, required parameters, and API path. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 show tool with no output schema, the description covers deprecation, when to use, parameter resolution, return type, error handling, and endpoint location. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional lookups.

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 by explaining that company_id defaults from procore_set_config when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. However, the claim that company_id can be omitted conflicts with the schema's required flag, and the schema's id description appears incorrectly copied ('iD of the company'). These slight ambiguities prevent a 5.

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 clear verb+resource statement: 'Return detailed information about a specific equipment model.' It distinguishes itself from sibling list/create/update/delete tools by focusing on a single known model and the need for a full field set. The deprecation notice further clarifies its niche.

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 states when to use the tool ('when you already know which equipment model you want and need its full field set') and gives actionable alternatives: prefer a newer version via procore_search_endpoints, and resolve the id with the matching list tool first. This is model guidance.

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