Show Company Upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a direct 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' statement. More valuably, it discloses failure modes (401/403/404) and the default behavior for company_id, which are not present in annotations. This goes beyond what structured fields provide without contradicting them.

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 purpose. Every sentence delivers distinct value: usage context, parameter defaults, return type, read-only safety, error semantics, and API reference. There is no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately compact for the information conveyed.

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 detail endpoint with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, parameter behavior, return type, safety, and common errors. It even includes the API version, category, and full endpoint path. The agent has enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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 that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted and that uuid must identify an existing parent record resolved via list tool. However, the claim that company_id can be omitted conflicts with the schema marking it required, which creates ambiguity and prevents a higher score.

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 it 'Show detailed information on an upload' with a specific verb and resource, and immediately scopes it to 'company upload'. It distinguishes itself from list tools by noting it is used when you already know which upload you want, and from project-level tools via the company_id parameter. The API endpoint further clarifies its unique role.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which company upload you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the uuid with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like show_project_upload or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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