Show Department

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by describing the return format ('Returns a single JSON object'), error behavior (HTTP statuses 401/403/404), and the requirement that id must reference an existing parent record. This is substantial additional disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, return type, read-only guarantee, error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. It is well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then layering contextual details. No redundant or filler sentences.

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 GET by ID tool with two well-documented params and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, prerequisites, return type, error behavior, and API endpoint. There is no output schema to explain, so the description is contextually complete.

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 already provides descriptions for both id and company_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for id by stating it 'must identify an existing parent record' and advising to resolve it with the list tool first. No additional company_id semantics, but the enhancement is substantial enough for a 4.

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 'Return details for a Department' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies scope ('full field set') and distinguishes this show operation from list/create/update/delete siblings by noting when to use it ('when you already know which department you want').

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which department you want and need its full field set,' providing clear when-to-use context. It also instructs to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first,' implying use of the list_departments sibling. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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