Show Company Configuration

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and explains failure payloads with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404). It also discloses the return format as a single JSON object, providing valuable runtime context.

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 core action followed by usage, return, safety, errors, and endpoint. Each sentence contributes distinct information; there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what it retrieves, when to use it, what it returns, error semantics, required parameter, and API endpoint. This is fully complete for an agent to invoke 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 describes company_id as 'unique identifier for the company,' and the description merely restates 'Required parameters: company_id' without adding further meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Retrieves a single company configuration in Procore.' It also notes 'full field set,' differentiating it from list-style tools. The sibling list shows no direct alternative for company configuration, so the purpose is 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?

The description states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which company configuration you want and need its full field set.' This clarifies the single-item retrieval scenario without explicitly naming alternatives, but the context is sufficient enough for an agent to choose it over list operations.

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