Show Company Insurance

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses that the operation is read-only ('changes nothing in Procore'), returns a single JSON object, and details error payload behavior with HTTP statuses. It also clarifies that company_id omits default to procore_set_config and id must resolve to an existing record — all meaningful behavioral nuances.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, parameter defaults, return type, read-only guarantee, error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. It is information-dense without redundancy, well-structured for an agent to parse.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, return shape, error semantics, and API reference. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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% with basic path-parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config and that id must identify an existing parent record, resolved via the list tool. This goes beyond the schema but does not fully enumerate field semantics for the return object.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Return detailed information on the specified Insurance') and clearly indicates this is a single-record 'show' operation. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which company insurance you want' and from project-level insurances via 'company insurance' and the API endpoint.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know which company insurance you want and need its full field set.' It also directs the agent to resolve the id with the matching list tool first and explains company_id defaults, plus common failure statuses (401, 403, 404) that signal when to re-authenticate or check permissions.

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