Show Prime Change Order

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable context: 'returns a single JSON object', failure modes with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), the project_id defaulting behavior, and the 1/2 tier limitation. This enriches the agent's understanding of runtime behavior.

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 well-organized, covering purpose, usage, parameters, return, safety, errors, and endpoint in a logical flow. Every sentence adds meaningful detail without fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return type ('single JSON object') and the view parameter's effect on response content. It also covers error handling, parameter defaults, and the API resource, making it complete for a show-by-id tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and that 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This goes beyond the schema's simple 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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Show the details of the Prime Change Order' and clearly identifies the endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Use this when you already know which prime change order 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you already know which prime change order you want'), prerequisite context ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'), and a clear limitation ('only supports projects using 1 and 2 tier change order configurations'). It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the matching list tool is implied.

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