Show Incident Alert Recipient

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It also discloses return format ('Returns a single JSON object') and likely error conditions (401, 403, 404), adding substantial context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage context, parameter defaults/prerequisites, return type, safety, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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's simple show-by-id nature and rich annotations, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to prepare parameters, the read-only nature, error responses, and the underlying REST endpoint. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by specifying the return type.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and severity_level_id and id must identify existing parent records resolved via list tools. It also lists required parameters explicitly, going beyond the bare schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the specified Incident Alert Recipient.' It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which incident alert recipient you want and need its full field set,' which clearly separates it from list and create/update/delete variants.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which incident alert recipient you want and need its full field set.' It also directs the agent to resolve parent IDs with 'the matching list tool first,' and explains the company_id default behavior via procore_set_config. This is clear guidance on prerequisites and alternatives.

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