Show Company Segment Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description reinforces read-only and adds substantial behavioral context: return format (single JSON object), error payload structure with common HTTP status codes (401/403/404), and the endpoint path. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Description is organized into clear sections: purpose, use case, parameter notes, return type, safety, error handling, required params, API reference. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or padding despite its length.

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?

Tool is relatively simple (4 params, no output schema, no enums) but description compensates by explaining error codes, return format, parameter prerequisites, and the exact API endpoint. It doesn't enumerate return fields, but for a show tool with annotations present, this is adequate.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds useful context: company_id defaults to procore_set_config value, and segment_id/id must reference existing parent records resolved via list tool. However, it contradicts the schema by listing company_id as required while stating it defaults when omitted, which could confuse 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?

Description opens with 'Return details on a specific Company Segment Item' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list/create/update siblings by stating it's for a single known item and references the matching list tool for resolution.

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: 'when you already know which company segment item you want and need its full field set.' Also directs users to resolve IDs with the matching list tool first, and notes company_id default behavior. Provides clear context without naming explicit exclusions.

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