Show Early Pay Program

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and lists the endpoint, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or rate limits. Since annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description adds marginal value.

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 four sentences long and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes required parameters and Procore API details. It is reasonably concise, though the API info could be considered extraneous. No wasted words, but could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two required parameters. The description states it returns a JSON object but does not describe pagination behavior despite page and per_page parameters being present. No output schema exists, so some description of the return structure would be beneficial. Overall, it provides enough context for a basic fetch but lacks depth on optional parameters.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description lists the two required parameters (company_id, early_pay_program_id) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description's explicit mention of required params is helpful but not extra semantic value.

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 that the tool returns an early pay program for a given company by its identifier. It specifies the required parameters and provides the API endpoint. However, it refers to 'Payments' instead of 'early pay programs', which could cause minor confusion. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_early_pay_programs' by focusing on fetching full details of a specific program.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Payments by its identifier', giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like listing tools. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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