Show Company Inspection Template Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable error semantics: '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.' This goes beyond annotations to disclose failure modes and authentication requirements.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, defaults, prerequisites, return type, read-only safety, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint. There is minor redundancy ('Returns the details' vs 'Returns a single JSON object') and the 'Required parameters' list duplicates the schema, but overall each sentence earns its place.

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 read-only show tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential bases: purpose, when to use, prerequisites, default behavior, return type, error handling, API area, and endpoint. The only minor gap is the ambiguous relationship between the default company_id behavior and its required status in the schema.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds semantic value by stating that company_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and explaining that inspection_template_id and id 'must identify existing parent records — resolve them with the matching list tool first.' However, the claim that company_id defaults when omitted slightly conflicts with its status as a required parameter in 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 opens with 'Returns the details for a specified Company Inspection Template Item,' clearly identifying the action (returns details) and resource (Company Inspection Template Item). It further distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying 'Use this when you already know which company inspection template item you want and need its full field set,' making the purpose specific and differentiating.

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 guidance: 'Use this when you already know which company inspection template item you want and need its full field set.' It also directs users to resolve parent IDs using 'the matching list tool first,' which is an explicit alternative. The note about company_id defaulting to procore_set_config adds usage context.

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