Show Time And Material Notification

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it states the tool is read-only, returns a single JSON object, describes error payload characteristics with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), mentions the project_id default from procore_set_config, and provides the endpoint path. These details go well beyond the structured fields.

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 every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, default behavior, return type, read-only nature, error handling, required params, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy or fluff.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers when to use, what it returns, error behavior, defaulting, and the exact endpoint, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully describes project_id (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not present in the schema. This additional context justifies a score above baseline.

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 the verb and resource: 'Return Time And Material Notification detailed information.' It further clarifies it returns a single JSON object for a specific notification, and the usage guidance 'when you already know which time and material notification you want' distinguishes it from list/search sibling 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which time and material notification you want and need its full field set.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios like listing or creating notifications.

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