Show Project Distribution Group

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and discloses failure modes ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). It also explains the default behavior of project_id and return format, adding genuine context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then delivers usage context, defaults, error behavior, required parameters, and API reference without fluff. Each sentence earns its place; the length is justified by 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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, prerequisites, default behavior, error handling, required parameters, return type, and endpoint. Even without an output schema, the agent has enough to invoke correctly. Optional parameters are documented in the schema, so no gaps remain.

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 for key parameters: project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, and distribution_group_id must reference an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. This extra semantics justifies a 4, though optional query parameters are left to the schema.

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 detail on a specified Project Distribution Group,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_project_distribution_groups by noting it is used when 'you already know which project distribution group 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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use this when you already know which project distribution group you want'), and provides a clear prerequisite: 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also notes the project_id default from procore_set_config, giving the agent actionable guidance.

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