Show Classification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the endpoint and that it returns a JSON object, but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema provide. No contradictions.

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 two sentences plus a list of required parameters and API info. It is relatively concise, though the API endpoint and 'Procore API' line are somewhat redundant. The first sentence clearly communicates the purpose.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain what the returned JSON object contains. It only says 'describing the requested Company Settings' which is vague. Additionally, the presence of pagination parameters (page, per_page) in the schema is not addressed; the description implies a single resource fetch, making the pagination parameters confusing. This gap reduces completeness.

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 lists required parameters and restates their purpose, but does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The pagination parameters (page, per_page) are mentioned in schema but not in description; this is acceptable as schema covers them.

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 states it fetches classification detailed information for a specific Company Settings by identifier. It is clear on the verb and resource, but the reference to 'Company Settings' may be confusing as the endpoint is project-level. It differentiates from sibling 'show_classification_company' implicitly by mentioning project_id, but not explicitly.

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 description only says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Company Settings by its identifier.' It provides no guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor when not to use. Required parameters are listed, but no context for exclusion or comparison.

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