Show Equipment Change History (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context: the endpoint is deprecated with a removal date, it returns a single JSON object, company_id defaults to the configured value, and it details failure modes (401 token expired, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolvable id). This supplements annotations without redundancy or contradiction.

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 information-dense but efficient, with the deprecated warning front-loaded and the key usage guidance included. It covers deprecation, defaults, prerequisites, error handling, and API reference in a compact paragraph. Slightly long but every sentence carries substance; no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only endpoint with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains what it returns (single JSON object), how to satisfy prerequisites (resolve id first), default behavior for company_id, error conditions, and the Procore API category. The deprecation guidance is critical for safe selection. Nothing essential is missing for the agent to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (company_id and id are described as URL path parameters). The description adds meaning by clarifying company_id can be omitted and defaults to the configured value, and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions, earning a score above the 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 states 'Return Equipment change history detailed information' with a specific verb (Return) and resource (Equipment change history). The DEPRECATED notice clearly identifies this as a deprecated endpoint with a removal date and directs users to prefer a newer version, which distinguishes it from alternatives. It also scopes usage: 'Use this when you already know which equipment change history you want and need its full field set.' This is specific and actionable.

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 when to use ('when you already know which equipment change history you want and need its full field set'), how to resolve the id ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'), and mentions deprecation with a pointer to procore_search_endpoints to find a newer version. This provides strong when/when-not/alternative guidance, far exceeding the minimum.

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