Show Hazard

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear from structured data. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, id must reference an existing parent record, the response is a single JSON object, and failures return error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). These details disclose error handling and defaulting behavior that annotations do not provide, with no contradiction.

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 a single dense paragraph containing multiple sentences, but each one earns its place: purpose, usage condition, parameter default, precondition, return type, read-only note, error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. It is somewhat long but efficiently packed with no redundant filler. It would benefit from bullet points or line breaks, but the information is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 tool has only two parameters, both fully described in the schema, and no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the response is a 'single JSON object.' It covers prerequisites (existing ID, company_id default), error semantics with common HTTP statuses, the API endpoint, and the Procore API section. For a straightforward read-only retrieval tool, this description 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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters documented as URL path parameters and id instructions to 'Use the id from the List Hazards response.' The tool description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 applies, but the extra defaulting and resolution guidance pushes it higher.

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 'Returns a single hazard by its ID,' using a specific verb and resource, and clarifies this is for retrieving one hazard when the ID is already known. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_hazards (which returns multiple) and create/update/delete hazard operations by emphasizing the 'full field set' for a single known entity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which hazard you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' providing a clear prerequisite for valid IDs. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'do not use when X,' the conditional framing strongly implies the alternative use case (e.g., use list when you don't have an ID). This is clear, though not exhaustive.

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