Show Injury

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and discloses failure modes: error payloads with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also adds default behavior for project_id and deprecation warnings, providing rich behavioral context beyond the structured 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 informative but verbose, containing redundant deprecation warnings ('The affected_body_part and afflictions fields are deprecated' followed by 'NOTE: The afflictions and affected_body_part keys are deprecated'). It packs in many details (endpoint, required parameters, API section) but the duplicate deprecation note and long tail reduce conciseness.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields, describing error payloads with common status codes, explaining parameter defaults, and providing the endpoint. It also covers deprecation and resolution guidance, making it highly complete for a read-only tool with 3 parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic path-parameter descriptions, though it does not explain the optional incident_id parameter.

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 a specified injury record with a detailed list of fields (affliction type, affected body parts, harm source, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is for when you already know which injury you want and need its full field set, differentiating it from listing or searching tools.

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 gives clear context: use when you already know the injury and need full details, and resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It also explains project_id defaults to the configured value. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., list_injuries) or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicitness of the top calibration example.

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