Show Company Form Template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: failure modes (401, 403, 404), return type, and the default behavior for company_id. Also clarifies the prerequisite that id must resolve to an existing parent record. These go beyond the structured 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 six sentences and every sentence carries useful information, but it repeats 'Required parameters: id, company_id' and 'Read-only' which are already in schema/annotations. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Slight redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 read tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, default behavior, return type, error conditions, and API endpoint. No output schema exists, but the return type is described. This is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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, but description adds meaningful semantics: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and id must be resolved via the list tool before calling. Also states both are URL path parameters, matching the schema. This gives the agent actionable guidance beyond the field names.

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?

Clearly states 'Returns the details for a specified Company Form Template' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from the list tool by noting this is for when you already know which template you want and need the full field set. Also differentiates from create/update/delete siblings by emphasizing read-only retrieval.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which company form template you want and need its full field set', setting clear selection criteria. Tells the agent to resolve id with the matching list tool first, providing a workflow prerequisite. Minor gap: doesn't name the exact list tool, but 'matching list tool' is clear enough among siblings.

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