Show Project Region

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and details failure modes with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) and error payload structure. This adds meaningful context not present in the 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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: usage scenario, parameter defaults, prerequisite, return type, read-only nature, error handling, required params, API location, and endpoint. It is comprehensive without redundancy.

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 covers the return type ('Returns a single JSON object') and failure scenarios. For a two-parameter read-only tool, the description provides complete context including resolution steps and expected error codes.

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 noting that company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record, which enriches the schema 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 clearly states 'Show detail on a specified Project Region' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling list_project_regions by noting it is for when you already know which project region 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you already know which project region you want and need its full field set.' It also provides a precondition and alternative: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which points to the relevant list tool.

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