Show Contributing Condition

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the return format ('Returns a single JSON object'), error behavior ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401, 403, 404'), and the default behavior of company_id from procore_set_config. It also reinforces the read-only nature ('Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore'), consistent with the annotations.

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. While it is relatively long, most sentences add value (usage context, defaults, error handling, return format). Minor redundancy exists with 'Required parameters: company_id, id' and the endpoint line, but they are concise and do not significantly bloat the description.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: when to use, how to resolve the id, default behavior, error codes, and return format. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics: company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record to be resolved with the list tool first. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and path descriptions.

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 'Returns the details for a single contributing condition identified by its ID,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this show operation from list operations by emphasizing 'single' and 'full field set,' and the resource name differentiates it from sibling tools like show_contributing_behavior.

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 contributing condition you want and need its full field set,' providing clear context. It also advises resolving the id with 'the matching list tool first,' which implies when not to use this tool (when you need to find the id). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state 'do not use when...'.

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