Show Gps Position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: error payload details with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), the defaulting behavior of company_id via procore_set_config, and a note that it changes nothing in Procore. This goes beyond the structured annotation data.

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 well-structured, with the core function stated first, followed by usage context, defaults, return type, error behavior, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. It is not bloated and earns its length.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects for a simple read tool: return format (single JSON object), error payloads with common status codes, default behavior for company_id, required parameters, and the resolving workflow with the list tool. Since there is no output schema, this description adequately explains what the agent can expect.

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 both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. This helps the agent understand the relationship and defaults.

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 GPS position, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is for when you already know which GPS position you want and need its full field set, and it references resolving the id with the matching list tool first.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you already know which GPS position you want and need its full field set') and advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or provide a 'when not to use' exclusion, but the context is clear enough.

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