Show Project Date (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: deprecation, failure payload shape with common 401/403/404 errors, and the prerequisite that id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 efficiently structured: it starts with purpose and deprecation, then covers usage, parameters, return type, safety, and failure modes. Every sentence provides actionable information without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 a simple 2-parameter schema, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, return type, read-only behavior, deprecation, and failure modes. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that id must identify an existing parent record and must be resolved via the list tool, clarifying the id parameter's semantics. project_id is adequately described in the schema itself.

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 'Show details of the specified Project Date,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by flagging deprecation and stating the precise use case ('when you already know which project date you want and need its full field set'), clearly differentiating from list/search tools.

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 project date you want and need its full field set') and when not to (prefer a newer version, directing to procore_search_endpoints). It also advises resolving id with a matching list tool first, giving actionable prerequisites and alternatives.

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