Show Bid Package

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses important behavior: it returns a single JSON object, details failure payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and explains project_id defaulting. This adds significant value and is consistent with annotations.

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 but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, defaults, return type, read-only nature, error handling, required params, API location, and endpoint. It is well-organized, front-loaded with the main purpose, and avoids 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 simple show tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, prerequisites (resolve id via list tool), project_id defaulting, error statuses, and API location. The agent has enough to invoke it correctly without further investigation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and id must resolve through the matching list tool. These details are not present in the schema, which only labels them as URL path parameters.

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 Bid Package detailed information' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list tools by saying 'Use this when you already know which bid package you want and need its full field set,' and the project_id parameter and endpoint make the project scope explicit.

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 clear when-to-use context: 'Use this when you already know which bid package you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve id with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it has clear context but no exclusions.

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