Show Submittal

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'it changes nothing in Procore,' explaining the project_id defaulting behavior from procore_set_config, and detailing common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404) and their meanings, which is not present in 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 with purpose, usage, defaults, return type, error behavior, and API reference. While slightly long, each sentence serves a purpose and the main action is front-loaded. The link and endpoint details are optional but useful for reference.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, parameter semantics, error handling, and safety. It could be more complete by detailing return fields or distinguishing from the v1.0 show_submittal sibling, but remains adequate for selection and invocation.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, and id must identify an existing record resolved via a list tool first, enriching the parameter understanding beyond simple type 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 opens with 'Return detailed information on the specified Submittal,' a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly states what the tool does. It reinforces the purpose with 'need its full field set' and distinguishes it from sibling list/create/update/delete operations on submittals.

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?

It states 'Use this when you already know which submittal you want and need its full field set,' giving clear usage context. It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, implying when not to use this tool, though without naming a specific alternative tool.

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