Show Direct Cost Line Item

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 value beyond annotations by disclosing error payload patterns (401/403/404) and the project_id defaulting behavior, which are not present in structured fields. No contradictions detected.

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 fairly long but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, defaults, return type, safety, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured with a logical flow and front-loaded main purpose, though slightly verbose for a read-only show operation.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully equips the agent: it states what is returned, when to use it, how to resolve prerequisites, error semantics, and the exact API endpoint. It also mentions the Procore API section, making the tool self-contained for selection and invocation.

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 each parameter described as a URL path parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and that direct_cost_id and id must reference existing parent records. This complements the schema without redundancy.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns detailed information on a Direct Cost Line Item,' which clearly distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete siblings. It further states the intended use case ('when you already know which direct cost line item you want'), reinforcing its purpose as a detail-fetch 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which direct cost line item you want and need its full field set' and instructs to 'resolve them with the matching list tool first.' This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance, plus notes project_id defaults from procore_set_config, which aids selection in context.

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