Show Material

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' (reinforcing safety), describes the return type ('Returns a single JSON object'), and discloses common error patterns with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage and helps the agent anticipate 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 four sentences and covers purpose, usage, behavior, errors, and endpoint reference. It is information-dense without excessive fluff, though the 'Required parameters' line and endpoint details slightly duplicate what is already in the schema or system metadata. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It includes the tool's scope, parameter default behavior, how to resolve the id, the safety profile, return format, error handling, and API endpoint. An agent has sufficient context to invoke this tool correctly without additional lookups.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds context about project_id defaulting to the value from procore_set_config and id needing to resolve an existing record. However, this creates a contradiction with the schema's required flag for project_id (schema lists it as required, while description implies it can be omitted). This inconsistency reduces the helpfulness of the extra parameter guidance.

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 'Return detailed information about a specific Material' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from list/create/update tools by specifying 'when you already know which material you want and need its full field set', making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_materials or create_material.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you already know which material you want and need its full field set') and provides actionable guidance to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first'. It also clarifies the project_id default behavior, giving clear usage context and a direct reference to an alternative tool.

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