Show Rounding Configuration

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds significant behavioral context: the procore_set_config default behavior, return format ('Returns a single JSON object'), and detailed failure semantics (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for unresolvable id). The read-only statement reinforces 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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, then usage, behavior, and API reference. Nearly every sentence earns its place; only 'Required parameters: company_id' is redundant with the input schema and could be trimmed.

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 single-parameter, read-only GET tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, when to use, invocation defaults, return shape, safety profile, error handling, and API endpoint. The absence of an output schema is adequately compensated by the explicit return-type statement.

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% for the single company_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema by noting that company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which clarifies how the required field can be satisfied via configuration state.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Show time increments and rounding rules for company timesheets.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create/update/delete rounding configuration tools by explicitly positioning this as a read operation that returns the 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?

The description provides an explicit when-to-use statement: 'Use this when you already know which rounding configuration you want and need its full field set.' It adds contextual guidance about the procore_set_config default, but it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_rounding_configuration) or state when not to use this tool.

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