Show Company Inspection Template Item Reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable detail about return format ('single JSON object') and error behaviors (401, 403, 404 status codes). The note about company_id defaulting is additional context, though it conflicts with the schema's required flag, slightly reducing clarity.

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 a dense single paragraph with useful information but contains redundancy (repeating 'company inspection template item reference' and listing required parameters already in the schema). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose but would benefit from clearer separation of usage, errors, and endpoint details.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return type, error handling, sandbox prerequisites, and the API endpoint, making it fairly complete for a read-only show tool. The inconsistency about company_id being both required and defaultable is a notable gap in correctness, preventing a higher score.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds relation guidance ('inspection_template_id, id must identify existing parent records') and a default behavior for company_id, but the default claim contradicts the schema requiring company_id, which undermines the usefulness of this added 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 the tool 'Retrieves a single company inspection template item reference' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list/create/delete tools by emphasizing 'single' and the retrieval action, and from project-scoped variants by specifying 'for the specified Procore company.'

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 states when to use the tool ('when you already know which company inspection template item reference you want and need its full field set') and provides prerequisites ('resolve them with the matching list tool first'). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool for exclusion, but the context is clear enough.

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