Show Submittal (Deprecated)

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

The description complements the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by adding valuable context: it is deprecated and may be removed without notice, it changes nothing in Procore, and it details failure modes (401/403/404). It also states the requirement that id must resolve to an existing parent record. 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 longer than two sentences but every segment serves a purpose: deprecation warning, usage context, endpoint path, return type, read-only nature, error handling, and required parameters. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the critical deprecation notice, though it could be trimmed slightly 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?

Given the simple GET-by-ID operation with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers return format ('single JSON object'), error payloads and common status codes, required parameters, read-only behavior, deprecation status, and the exact endpoint path. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema already covers both parameters (id and project_id) with descriptions and 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds context by specifying that id must identify an existing parent record and that project_id is required, which aids correct invocation beyond the schema's basic path/query identification.

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 identifies the tool as a deprecated show-submittal endpoint, specifies it returns a single JSON object with the full field set, and contrasts with list/alternative tools by stating to use it when you already know the submittal ID. It also directs users to prefer a newer version, which distinguishes it from related show/list 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Use this when you already know which submittal you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the ID with a list tool first, and provides alternatives: 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' This meets the explicit when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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