Show Billing Period For Project

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds valuable context: project_id defaults to procore_set_config, id must resolve to an existing parent record, returns a single JSON object, is read-only, and details common HTTP error responses (401, 403, 404). This substantially enriches the behavioral profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage, parameter behavior, read-only status, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the info density is high without redundancy. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, how to use it, error handling, and API endpoint. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: project_id has a default via procore_set_config when omitted, and id must be resolved with the list tool. However, there is minor ambiguity: it lists both params as required while noting the default, which could confuse. Still adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Return information for a Billing Period' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this show tool from list/create/update/delete siblings by specifying it's for when you already know the billing period and need its full field set.

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: 'when you already know which billing period you want and need its full field set.' Also directs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, establishing a clear workflow. The defaulting behavior of project_id is also explained.

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