Show Drawing Revision

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

Annotations already mark read-only and idempotent; the description reinforces this and adds failure semantics: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' It also discloses the return shape ('single JSON object') and that id must reference an existing parent record.

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?

At about nine sentences, the description is dense but each sentence contributes information — purpose, usage, defaults, return type, safety, error codes, and endpoint reference. The 'Required parameters' line is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the default-vs-required contradiction adds a small blemish.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description covers the tool's full behavior: what it returns, when to use it, how to resolve prerequisites, error conditions, and the API endpoint. This is comprehensive for a simple read-only lookup and leaves no major gaps.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: that project_id can default from procore_set_config and that id must be resolved via the list tool first. However, the claim that project_id defaults when omitted conflicts with the schema marking it required, slightly undermining clarity.

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 'Returns a specific Drawing Revision from the specified Project' — a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use this when you already know which drawing revision you want and need its full field set,' separating it from list or update tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('when you already know which drawing revision you want') and suggests using 'the matching list tool first' to resolve the id. It also notes that project_id defaults from procore_set_config, which orients an agent on configuration prerequisites.

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