Show Checklist Signature Request

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

The description substantially enriches the annotations. It explicitly states "Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore," adds failure behavior ("Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve"), and clarifies the context under which these errors occur. This goes far beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations and gives the agent actionable expectations.

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 moderately long but each sentence contributes: retrieval purpose, when-to-use, ID resolution, return type, read-only safety, error handling, required parameters, and API context. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the "Required parameters" enumeration duplicates the schema's required array. Still, the extra endpoint and error context justifies the length.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type ("a single JSON object"), error scenarios, required parameters, parent-record resolution, and API mapping (GET /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/signature_requests/{id}). For a read-only single-resource retrieval tool, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful relational context: "list_id, id must identify existing parent records — resolve them with the matching list tool first." This clarifies the dependency between parameters and their role in the endpoint path. However, it does not provide additional per-parameter syntax or format details 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: "Retrieves Signature Request for a specified Checklist." It also specifies the return type ("Returns a single JSON object describing the checklist signature request") and distinguishes it from the list/create/delete sibling tools by focusing on retrieval of a single, known resource. The verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'Signature Request for a specified Checklist' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: "Use this when you already know which checklist signature request you want and need its full field set." It also instructs the agent to resolve parent records first: "list_id, id must identify existing parent records — resolve them with the matching list tool first." However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for when you don't know the signature request (e.g., list_checklist_signature_requests), so it misses full when-not/alternative clarity.

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