Show Property Damage

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds value by detailing failure modes ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve') and return shape ('Returns a single JSON object'). No contradiction with 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?

The description is multi-sentence but each section is purposeful: purpose, usage context, default behavior, return type, safety, errors, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly longer than minimal but well-structured and not repetitive.

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?

For a read-only fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: return fields, id resolution, project_id default, error statuses, required parameters, API path, and read-only nature. It is comprehensive for the tool's complexity and leaves little room for agent confusion.

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 meaningful context: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. Incident_id is not enriched but is covered in schema. Overall adds value beyond 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 'Returns the specified property damage record with full details...', a specific verb+object+scope that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like list_property_damages by saying 'when you already know which property damage you want', and adds the API endpoint for precision.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is present: 'Use this when you already know which property damage you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' for the id and explains the project_id default from procore_set_config, covering prerequisites and when-to-use.

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