Show Recycled Observation

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states read-only behavior, describes the error payload with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), explains the default for project_id from procore_set_config, and notes that the response shape matches a standard GET endpoint. This goes well beyond what annotations already convey.

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 relatively long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds useful information, though there is minor redundancy (e.g., 'Returns a single JSON object' repeats the initial statement, and 'Required parameters' duplicates the schema). It is dense but not wasteful.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers return shape, error handling, parameter defaults, prerequisites, and the distinction from restore. It also names the API endpoint and category, making it complete for a single-resource retrieval tool with high annotation coverage.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the configured value, and id must identify an existing parent record, with guidance to resolve it via the list tool. This enriches the bare schema definitions.

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 that it returns a single Observation from the recycle bin, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from related tools by specifying the recycle bin context and full field set, and it mentions the restore action separately, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this when you already know which recycled observation you want and need its full field set') and directs users to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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