Show Company-Level Email Communication

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' error semantics ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'), and return type ('Returns a single JSON object'). This enriches the agent's understanding significantly.

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 longer than strictly necessary but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage conditions, defaulting, resolution, read-only nature, error codes, and endpoint. The information is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 2-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format, error behavior, parameter defaulting, and required prerequisites (id resolution). It is fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. The description adds useful guidance about company_id defaulting and id resolution, but the statement 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' conflicts with the schema declaring company_id as required, which could mislead the agent.

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 'Shows detailed information around a single company-level email communication,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like list_of_company_level_emails and create_company_level_email_communication by emphasizing 'single' and 'company-level.'

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 says 'Use this when you already know which company-level email communication you want and need its full field set,' and directs the agent to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance plus an alternative approach for unknown ids.

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