Show Prime Change Order Batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it reaffirms 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' details failure modes with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and explains the project_id default from procore_set_config. This goes well beyond the structured 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 a dense but well-organized paragraph covering usage, defaults, return type, safety, errors, required parameters, and API endpoint. It avoids fluff, though the sentence 'Required parameters: project_id, id' is redundant with the input schema. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return as 'a single JSON object describing the prime change order batch.' It covers error conditions, parameter defaults, and the need to resolve id beforehand. This is sufficient for a 2-parameter read-only show tool, though it does not enumerate the object's fields.

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 describes both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the configured value and that id must resolve to an existing parent record, to be obtained via the list tool. This extra context nudges the score up, despite a slight inconsistency where the schema marks project_id as required while the description mentions a default.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Show the details of the Prime Change Order Batch.' It clearly indicates this is a single-record retrieval tool, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like show_all_prime_change_order_batches. The endpoint and singular target reinforce the purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you already know which prime change order batch you want and need its full field set.' It also provides a prerequisite and alternative by instructing to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' and explains the project_id default behavior. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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