Show Company File Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds failure modes for 401/403/404. This extra context explains auth/permission/not-found behavior beyond the 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 purpose and usage, then covers defaults, return shape, safety, error handling, and endpoint. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the endpoint line is slightly redundant with the schema.

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 show-by-id tool with two path parameters and no output schema, the description covers when to use, how to resolve the id, return type, and likely errors. The only real gap is the company_id required/optional contradiction, and it does not list return fields, but 'full field set' is adequate.

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, and the description adds id-resolution guidance. However, it says company_id defaults when omitted while the schema lists company_id as required and the description itself says 'Required parameters: company_id, id' — a confusing contradiction that undermines parameter semantics.

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 'Show detailed information about a File Version' and specifies the exact use case when the target version is already known, distinguishing it from list/create verbs and from project-scoped siblings by noting 'company file version'.

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?

It explicitly prompts use 'when you already know which company file version you want and need its full field set' and instructs resolving the id with a list tool first. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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