Show Custom Field Lov Entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which convey it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' plus error handling details covering 401 (token expired), 403 (missing permission), and 404 (unresolved id). This exceeds the baseline established by annotations, though it doesn't describe return format details (but no output schema exists, so the description partially covers behavior).

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 a single dense paragraph, but each sentence earns its place: return value, use case, prerequisite guidance, read-only guarantee, error codes, required parameters, API location, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and use case. Slightly long but information-dense; no filler words.

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?

This is a simple get-by-id tool with 3 well-documented parameters and full schema coverage. The description covers purpose, prerequisites, error behavior, and endpoint. It doesn't describe the return object's fields, but for a show tool without an output schema, that's a minor gap. The completion is strong enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds limited extra value by identifying which are URL path parameters vs query parameters via the schema, but it does reiterate required parameters and notes prerequisite relationships (ids must identify existing parent records). The description also names the endpoint with the parameter placeholders, which adds some context beyond schema, but not enough to push beyond the baseline.

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 the details for a specified Custom Field Lov Entry,' with a specific verb (returns/show details) and resource (custom field LOV entry). It distinguishes itself from list tools by emphasizing 'when you already know which custom field LOV entry you want and need its full field set,' which differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_custom_field_lov_entries_company.

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 custom field LOV entry you want and need its full field set.' It also provides guidance on prerequisites: 'custom_field_definition_id, id must identify existing parent records — resolve them with the matching list tool first.' This gives clear when-to-use and references alternatives (list tools) for resolution.

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