Show Project Vendor Insurance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable non-obvious behavior: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and error codes (401/403/404) are explained. This goes beyond the 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 dense but front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every major sentence adds value: usage trigger, default behavior, read-only guarantee, error semantics, required params, and endpoint. Slight redundancy exists with 'Required parameters' duplicating schema, but overall it earns its length.

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 return shape ('single JSON object'), error payloads with common HTTP statuses, default behavior for project_id, and resource resolution prerequisites. It also includes the Procore API area and exact endpoint. For a 4-parameter read-only tool, this is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: it explains project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, that vendor_id and id must reference existing parent records, and lists the required parameters. This helps the agent understand parameter relationships, but the schema already covers basic semantics.

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?

Description opens with 'Show detail on the specified Project Vendor Insurance' – a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from list/create/update/delete siblings by stating 'Use this when you already know which project vendor insurance you want and need its full field set' and noting it 'Returns a single JSON object' rather than a collection.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which project vendor insurance you want and need its full field set.' It also gives a prerequisite alternative: 'resolve them with the matching list tool first.' This effectively tells the agent to use list tools for discovery and this tool for direct fetch.

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