Show Timecard Entry

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' describing the return type as a single JSON object, and detailing failure modes with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This provides substantial behavioral context beyond what readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already convey.

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: purpose first, then usage context, followed by return type, safety, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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-only tool, the description provides complete context: when to use it, how to resolve the identifier, what it returns, safety guarantees, common error statuses, and the exact API endpoint. With strong annotations and full schema coverage, 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved with a list tool first, and by explicitly listing required parameters. This enhances the schema's basic type and location descriptions.

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 'Return detailed information about a specific Timecard Entry' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it returns the full field set. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like show_timecard_entry_project and show_timecard_entry_company, relying only on the API endpoint for implicit scoping.

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 timecard entry you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, which is an actionable prerequisite. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives among similar show_timecard_entry_* tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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