Show Contract Payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable context: return shape ('single JSON object') and failure modes ('error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401, 403, and 404'). This goes beyond the annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 serves a purpose: purpose, when-to-use, id resolution, return type, read-only guarantee, error behavior, required parameters, and API context. No filler or redundancy. Though longer than two sentences, the density of useful information justifies the length, and it is 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?

Given that no output schema exists, the description compensates by stating the return type ('single JSON object') and error payloads. It also includes the API category and endpoint, and lists all required parameters. It could be more explicit about the contents of the 'full field set,' but for a show-by-id tool this is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds meaningful guidance for the 'id' parameter: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which helps the agent understand how to obtain a valid value. It also reiterates the required parameters, adding emphasis.

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 opens with 'Return detailed information on the specified Contract Payment,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list, create, update, delete) by emphasizing retrieval of a single record and its 'full field set.' The reference to resolving the id with the matching list tool further contrasts it with list operations.

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: 'Use this when you already know which contract payment you want and need its full field set.' It also provides a prerequisite: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' implying the alternative for searching. This gives clear selection guidance.

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