Show Direct Cost Item

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 adds valuable context beyond this: 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' and a detailed explanation of error responses (401, 403, 404). It also explicitly reinforces 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' These additions enhance the agent's understanding of side effects and failure modes.

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 detail-dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage trigger, parameter defaults, resolution prerequisite, return type, safety claim, error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundancy.

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 show operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned ('a single JSON object'), covers error handling with specific HTTP statuses, explains parameter defaults and prerequisites, and notes the API endpoint. It gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly, despite the large sibling list.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches both parameters: project_id gains the default behavior from procore_set_config, and id gains the prerequisite to resolve it with a list tool first. However, there's a minor internal contradiction: the schema lists both as required, but the description says project_id defaults when omitted, which could confuse. The extra guidance still lifts it above 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 opens with 'Show detail on specified Direct Cost Item,' a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the tool's scope by noting it provides the full field set, distinguishing it from listing tools. The sibling context includes list_direct_cost_items, create/update/delete, and show_direct_cost_line_item, and this description clearly targets fetching a single direct cost item by id.

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 states 'Use this when you already know which direct cost item you want and need its full field set,' giving a clear when-to-use condition. It also directs the agent to resolve ids with 'the matching list tool first,' naming the alternative for discovery. While it doesn't explicitly say 'don't use this for listing,' the context is clear enough, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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