Show Project Location

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' 'location_id must identify an existing parent record,' and a breakdown of common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explicitly affirms the read-only nature, reinforcing the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact yet information-dense, with the primary action stated first. Every sentence contributes: usage guidance, parameter behavior, return type, safety, and error semantics. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how parameters behave, what it returns, and common failure modes. The explicit API endpoint and resource path further anchor the agent's invocation. This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear 'URL path parameter' descriptions for both required parameters. The description enhances this by explaining the procore_set_config default for project_id and instructing that location_id must reference an existing parent record, resolved via a list tool. This adds practical meaning beyond 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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Retrieves a Location for a specified project.' It clearly scopes the operation to a single location, distinct from sibling tools like list_project_locations or show_project_region. The mention of returning the 'full field set' further clarifies its role as a detailed lookup.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which project location you want and need its full field set.' It also directs the agent to resolve location_id with a list tool first, implying alternatives. However, it doesn't name a specific alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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