Show Recycled Property Damage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds valuable context: error status codes (401, 403, 404), project_id defaulting to procore_set_config, and the requirement that id must resolve to an existing parent record. This goes beyond the structured 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 well-organized with purpose front-loaded, but contains redundancy: 'Returns a single JSON object' loosely repeats the opening statement, and 'Required parameters: project_id, id' duplicates the schema's required array. It could be tightened without losing value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the return type (single JSON object). It covers error payloads, parameter defaults, prerequisites, and the endpoint. While it does not explicitly name alternative list/show tools, it provides enough guidance for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by noting project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record, resolved via the matching list tool. This supplements the raw 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 recycled property damage record with full details,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from the Show Property Damage endpoint by noting it represents a soft-deleted record and from list tools by requiring an existing id.

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: 'Use this when you already know which recycled property damage you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, implying when the list tool should be used instead. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., list_recycled_property_damages).

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