Show Budget Meta Data

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and details error payload behavior (401/403/404), a defaulting behavior for project_id, and the return type. This goes well beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds operational value — usage, defaulting, return type, safety, error handling, and API reference. There is no redundant or filler language.

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-only tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the purpose, when to use it, project_id default, return shape, read-only guarantee, common error conditions, and the underlying API endpoint, leaving minimal ambiguity for the agent.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description builds on it by explaining that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted. It does not add type or format details beyond the schema, but the defaulting nuance is valuable.

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 'Show meta data for a project's budget' — a clear verb+resource statement. It further distinguishes from sibling budget tools by specifying it returns the full field set of budget metadata, not budget line items or details.

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?

The phrase 'Use this when you already know which budget meta data you want and need its full field set' provides clear context for when to call this tool, implying that list/search tools are alternatives when the specific metadata is unknown. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use.

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