Show Change Order Request

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', describes error payloads with specific HTTP status meanings (401, 403, 404), and notes that the id must reference an existing parent record. 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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidance, then behavior/errors, then API reference. Every sentence adds value, including the error status details and the API endpoint, without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, prerequisites (resolve id first), return format (single JSON object), read-only nature, and failure modes. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear return type statement.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the required parameters (id, project_id, contract_id) and clarifying that id must identify an existing parent record. However, it does not elaborate on optional parameters like view or filters__include_deleted, but those are well-documented in 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?

The description starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Return detailed information about a specified Change Order Request'. It distinguishes this SHOW operation from LIST/CREATE/UPDATE siblings by emphasizing 'specified' and 'full field set', and by stating when it should be used.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know which change order request you want and need its full field set' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' effectively directs the agent to the list tool when the id is unknown. This satisfies the when/alternative guidance requirement.

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