Show Cost Code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true. The description only adds that it returns a JSON object, which is minimal. No additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, error handling) is provided beyond 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 four sentences and fairly clear, but includes the API endpoint and Procore API category which may be unnecessary for tool selection. It could be more concise by omitting implementation details.

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 read operation, the description covers purpose, required parameters, and return type. It does not mention error handling or pagination behavior (though those are in the schema). Overall, it is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and schema.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description only lists required parameters (id, project_id) without adding meaning beyond the schema. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 returns details on a specific Cost Code using its identifier, mentioning Work Breakdown Structure records. It implicitly distinguishes from list operations but does not explicitly differentiate from 'show_standard_cost_code' or other similar tools.

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?

The description provides a basic usage statement ('fetch full details of a specific...') but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_cost_codes, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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