Show Harm Source

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

Even with annotations declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful context: it explicitly confirms 'Read-only — it changes nothing', details failure modes (401/403/404), return format (single JSON object), and the endpoint. This goes beyond annotations to fully set expectations.

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 thorough yet every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage context, parameter defaults, return type, safety, errors, required params, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids repetition or filler, achieving a dense but efficient structure.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (JSON object), prerequisites (resolve id), error patterns, read-only guarantee, and API location. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further lookup.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, but the description enriches them further: it explains company_id's default from procore_set_config and clarifies that id must reference an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. This adds value beyond the schema's basic 'URL path parameter' 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 clearly states 'Returns a single harm source by its ID' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from list/create/update/delete siblings by emphasizing the 'single' retrieval use case. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 this tool ('when you already know which harm source you want and need its full field set') and instructs resolving the id with the matching list tool first, providing direct guidance to the alternative. Also notes company_id default behavior, leaving no doubt about context.

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