Show An Project Equipment Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Field Productivity records,' which is consistent but does not enrich beyond the annotations or explain pagination behavior (page, per_page parameters).

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 concise at two sentences plus a line about required parameters and API endpoint details. It is front-loaded with the main action and adds optional context (Procore API area, endpoint) without being verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should provide more detail about the return value. It only says 'a JSON object describing the requested Field Productivity records,' which is vague. Annotations are complete, but the description could list key response fields for clarity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description reiterates required parameters but adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Return detailed information about a specific equipment log.' It also mentions 'fetch the full details of a specific Field Productivity records by its identifier' and provides the endpoint, making it unmistakable what resource is being targeted.

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?

The description identifies required parameters ('Required parameters: project_id, id') and the use case ('Use this to fetch the full details'). It does not explicitly exclude when not to use it, but the mention of 'specific' implies it is for fetching one record, contrasting with list tools. Sibling tools like 'list_project_equipment_logs' reinforce the distinction, though not explicitly stated.

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