Show Time And Material Equipment Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable context: error payloads with HTTP statuses (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for non-existent id) and the project_id default behavior from procore_set_config. These details go beyond the structured annotations and aid in anticipating failures.

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 efficiently structured: it starts with the purpose, then usage condition, parameter defaults, return type, read-only note, error semantics, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence provides actionable information without redundancy, and the most important details are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description states the return is 'a single JSON object' but does not enumerate its fields. However, the phrase 'full field set' plus the tool name provides a reasonable expectation of the output. The description covers required parameters, default behavior, safety, and common errors, making it sufficiently complete for 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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted and that id must reference an existing parent record. However, this conflicts with the input schema which marks project_id as required, creating potential confusion for the agent.

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 ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('Time And Material Equipment Log detailed information'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by adding the usage condition 'when you already know which time and material equipment log you want and need its full field set,' which contrasts with list, create, update, and delete 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which time and material equipment log you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving id with the matching list tool first, which implicitly directs the agent to the appropriate alternative. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the guidance is clear.

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