Show Generic Tool Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context beyond that: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and failures return error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This enriches the agent's understanding, though the read-only statement is redundant with annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the description is organized into clear segments: purpose, link, usage, parameters, return value, read-only status, error codes, and endpoint. While a bit verbose and occasionally redundant with schema/annotations, each sentence contributes useful info and the structure aids scanning.

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 read-only single-resource tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (know IDs, resolve via list), defaults (project_id), return format (single JSON object), safety (read-only), error behavior (401/403/404), and the exact endpoint. This is comprehensive with no significant 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds meaning by noting that project_id can be omitted and defaults to the config value, and that generic_tool_item_id and generic_tool_id must reference existing parent records resolved via the list tool. This supplements the schema's field descriptions.

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 'Get the details of a single Generic Tool Item' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from list/create tools by saying 'Use this when you already know which generic tool item you want and need its full field set.' The endpoint is clearly specified, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which generic tool item you want' and instructs to 'resolve them with the matching list tool first.' This distinguishes it from list tools and provides a clear prerequisite workflow, even if it doesn't mention alternative show versions.

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