Show Document Upload

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states the operation is read-only, describes the defaulting behavior of company_id and project_id from procore_set_config, mentions the requirement that document_upload_id must reference an existing parent record, and details likely error responses (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, and the length is justified by the rich detail provided.

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 single-resource retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (a single JSON object), how to use it (with the list tool for ID resolution), its read-only nature, error handling, and API endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior of company_id and project_id, and the requirement that document_upload_id be a valid existing record. It does not mention the locale parameter, but the schema already fully describes it, so this is not a significant gap.

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 with a specific verb ('Returns details about a Document Upload') and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing that it is for when you already know the specific upload and need its full field set. It also points to the matching list tool, further clarifying its role.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know which document upload you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the document_upload_id with the matching list tool first, clearly indicating a prerequisite and implying the alternative (list tool) for cases where the ID is unknown.

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