Show Equipment Maintenance Log (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that by explicitly saying 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and detailing failure modes (401/403/404 error payloads). It also describes the return shape as a single JSON object. This is useful context that exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 dense but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, deprecation, usage criteria, parameter behavior, return type, safety, error handling, and API location. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear section-like phrasing. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Given the tool is a deprecated read-only fetch with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: deprecation schedule, how to find a replacement, how to obtain the id, company_id default, return format, and common error responses. It is fully complete for an AI 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%, and the description adds meaningful context: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved with the matching list tool first. This goes beyond the schema's sparse descriptions, which are partially confusing (the id description mentions 'makes').

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 returns detailed information about a specific equipment maintenance log, with the verb 'Return' and the specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_equipment_maintenance_logs and create/update/delete variants by noting it is for when you already know which log you want and need the full field set.

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 states when to use it ('Use this when you already know which equipment maintenance log you want') and provides alternatives: the deprecation notice directs to prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints. It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, which is crucial usage guidance.

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