Show Payment Application (Owner Invoice)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the return format ('Returns a single JSON object') and error behavior ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). It also notes the read-only nature, reinforcing the 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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: usage context, prerequisite, return format, read-only note, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. No filler or redundant statements.

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 retrieval tool with two fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers return format, error scenarios, parameter semantics, and the API endpoint, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating 'id must identify an existing parent record' and instructing the agent to resolve it via the list tool first. This goes beyond the schema's label of 'Payment Application (Owner Invoice) ID.'

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 'Retrieves a single payment application in Procore,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from listing tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which payment application you want and need its full field set.'

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which payment application you want.' It also directs the agent to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' explicitly identifying the alternative for obtaining IDs. The description covers the prerequisite for successful invocation.

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