Show Bid Package

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral detail: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, failures return an error payload with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and it explicitly states "Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore." This goes well beyond the annotations and helps an agent anticipate side effects and error handling.

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, well-structured paragraph of about 100 words. It leads with purpose, then usage guidance, parameter notes, return type, safety, error behavior, and API endpoint. Every sentence contributes unique information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: return format, error scenarios, default value behavior, prerequisite resolution of id, and the underlying API endpoint. It is fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema only describes the parameters as URL path identifiers. The description adds meaning by explaining that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This enriches the bare schema definitions, though the core identifier meanings are already present.

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 specific verb+resource: "Return Bid Package detailed information," and further clarifies "Returns a single JSON object describing the bid package." It distinguishes from list/update siblings by stating it is for when you "already know which bid package you want and need its full field set," and the company-scoped endpoint differentiates it from project-scoped show 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?

Explicitly states when to use: "Use this when you already know which bid package you want and need its full field set." It also advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first, implying the alternative for when the id is unknown. This provides clear usage context and a prerequisite without naming the exact sibling tool.

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