Show BIM Level

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' the return format (single JSON object), and specific error scenarios (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id). No contradiction 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 contributes value: purpose, usage context, prerequisite, return type, read-only guarantee, error behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, though slightly long for a simple show operation.

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 GET tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, when to use it, what to prepare, error handling, and API location. Combined with rich annotations and a 100% schema-coverage, there are no significant gaps.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for `id`: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which is helpful beyond the schema. It also reiterates required parameters, but the added id context justifies a 4.

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 and resource: 'Return a single BIM Level item.' It clearly distinguishes this show tool from sibling tools like list_bim_levels by stating 'when you already know which BIM level you want 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?

Provides explicit usage context: use this when you already know the exact BIM level and need the full field set. It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, giving a clear prerequisite and implicitly directing users away from using this for discovery.

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