Show Asset By Code

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable non-obvious behavior: case-insensitive matching, defaulting of company_id, 'existing parent record' requirement, and detailed failure modes (401/403/404) with HTTP status explanations. This exceeds what annotations convey.

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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, parameter defaults, return type, read-only guarantee, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It is somewhat long but not verbose, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Slightly better structure (bullets) would improve scannability, but it is acceptably concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return type ('single JSON object describing the asset'). It covers the workflow (resolve with list tool first), authentication errors, required parameters, default behavior, and the exact REST endpoint. This is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke the tool successfully without additional context.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context like 'asset_code must identify an existing parent record' and company_id default, but it does not explain Accept-Language or wrap_custom_fields beyond the schema. Notably, the description says company_id defaults 'when omitted' while the schema marks it required, creating a minor inconsistency that undermines clarity.

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: 'Returns Asset Details by given Asset ID / Asset Code (case-insensitive).' It specifies the exact resource (Assets), the operation (GET by code), and even the scope (company-level, distinguishing it from show_asset_by_code_project). The use case 'when you already know which asset you want' further separates it from list/search tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you already know which asset you want and need its full field set' and instructs to resolve the asset_code with the matching list tool first. It also explains the default behavior for company_id via procore_set_config. While it does not name alternative tools (e.g., show_asset_company or list_assets_company), the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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