Show Equipment Timecard Entry (Project)

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 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' explains that project_id and company_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and discloses failure modes ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401... 403... 404'). This significantly exceeds what the annotations alone provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, parameter defaults/id resolution, return type, read-only guarantee, error handling, API section, and endpoint. No fluff or repetition.

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 without an output schema, the description specifies the return shape ('Returns a single JSON object'), covers error payloads, parameter behavior, and points to the exact Procore API endpoint. For a three-parameter read-only tool, this is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting that project_id and company_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted (clarifying optionality despite being listed as required) and by explaining that id 'must identify an existing parent record,' guiding resolution. This justifies a 4.

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 'Return detailed information about a specific equipment timecard entry,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It further distinguishes itself from listing tools by noting it is for when you 'already know which equipment timecard entry you want and need its full field set,' and the title's '(Project)' scope disambiguates from any company-level variants.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you already know which equipment timecard entry you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which directly routes to an alternative when 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.