Show Safety Violation Logs

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context: project_id defaults, id must reference an existing record, return type (single JSON object), and detailed error payload behaviors (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the 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-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, parameters, errors, and API reference. While slightly lengthy, every sentence contributes useful information, and no content is redundant or 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?

For a simple fetch-by-id tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use, prerequisites, parameter semantics, error handling, return shape, and API endpoint. No output schema is present, but the return type is explicitly stated. It is fully complete for invoking and interpreting failures.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, but the description enhances semantics by stating project_id defaults to procore_set_config value and id must resolve to an existing record via the list tool. This adds meaning beyond the 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 clearly states 'Returns single Safety Violation Log' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'Use this when you already know which safety violation log you want and need its full field set,' directly contrasting with list or mutation tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which safety violation log you want...' and an alternative/ prerequisite: 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' Also explains the project_id default from procore_set_config, giving clear operational context.

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