Show Custom Fields Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore." It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: error payload details (401/403/404), the requirement that id must exist, and the return format ("Returns a single JSON object"). This is helpful, though the read-only part is redundant.

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 paragraph with no wasted sentences. It covers purpose, usage, prerequisite, return behavior, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint reference. It is somewhat dense but each sentence adds value. The structure could be improved with bullet points or separation, but it remains readable and focused.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ("Returns a single JSON object describing the custom fields section") and error behavior. It also covers the prerequisite for id resolution and the required parameters. For a simple single-resource GET endpoint, this is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without further clarification.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaning by stating that id "must identify an existing parent record" and must be resolved via the list tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic "custom Fields Section ID" and provides actionable guidance for parameter selection. No new syntax or format details are added, but the resolution requirement is valuable.

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's function: "Returns the details for a specified Custom Field Section." It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from list tools by noting "Use this when you already know which custom fields section you want and need its full field set." The endpoint and API reference further clarify the exact operation.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: "Use this when you already know which custom fields section you want and need its full field set" and "resolve it with the matching list tool first." This tells the agent when to use this tool and points to an alternative (the list tool) for resolving IDs. It also notes the read-only nature and error behavior, giving clear context for selection.

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