Show Generic Tool Item

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' and discloses error behavior (HTTP statuses 401, 403, 404) and the return type ('a single JSON object'). No contradictions 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage, return behavior, error handling, and required parameters. Each sentence provides useful information, though the 'Required parameters' sentence duplicates schema info and the API context line is slightly tangential. It remains appropriately sized for a tool without an output schema.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value ('Returns a single JSON object'), error scenarios (401/403/404), read-only behavior, and prerequisite resolution. The tool is a simple 'get by id' operation with two parameters, and the description provides enough context for an agent to 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?

Schema descriptions already fully cover both parameters (id, project_id) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting id 'must identify an existing parent record' and instructing to resolve it via the list tool, which enhances the semantic understanding beyond the schema's simple 'generic Tool Item ID'.

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's action: 'Get the details of a single Generic Tool Item.' It specifies the resource and scope ('single', 'full field set'), and distinguishes it from list tools by noting it is for when you already know which item you want. The endpoint and API category further solidify the purpose.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know which generic tool item you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which names the prerequisite and points to an alternative tool class. This gives clear when-to-use and contextual exclusions.

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