Show Item Response Set

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it confirms 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', describes the return as a single JSON object, and enumerates common error statuses (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This gives an agent a clear picture of failure modes.

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 yet well-organized, with each sentence serving a purpose: purpose, usage, defaults, return type, read-only nature, error handling, requirements, and API reference. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Covers all critical aspects: what it returns, when to use, prerequisites, error behavior, and API endpoint. However, the contradictory guidance on company_id being both optional and required introduces a minor ambiguity in an otherwise thorough description.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds useful context about id being an existing parent record and company_id defaulting, but the statement 'company_id defaults to... when omitted' directly contradicts the schema's required field and the later 'Required parameters: company_id, id'. This internal inconsistency undermines parameter clarity.

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 specified Checklist Item Response Set' with a specific verb and resource. It further defines when to use it ('when you already know which item response set you want and need its full field set'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool.

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 the tool and instructs to resolve the id with the 'matching list tool first', providing a clear alternative for unknown ids. Also notes the company_id default behavior, giving practical usage context.

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