Show Timecard Entry (Company)

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/destructive, but the description adds significant context: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' reinforces the annotation, and it details failure modes with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), token expiry, and permission requirements. It also clarifies the return format ('single JSON object'). No contradiction with 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 strictly necessary but is information-dense and logically organized. It front-loads the purpose, then covers usage prerequisite, default behavior, read-only nature, failure modes, and the API endpoint. The redundant 'Required parameters' line is minor and does not detract significantly.

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 show tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it returns, prerequisites for id, default for company_id, read-only nature, and possible error statuses. It includes the Procore API path and endpoint, enabling correct invocation. No gaps that would hinder an agent.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for id and company_id. The description adds value by explaining company_id can default to procore_set_config and that id must reference an existing parent record. However, it creates ambiguity by later stating 'Required parameters: id, company_id' while also saying company_id can be omitted, which conflicts with both the schema and itself. This undermines the usefulness.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return detailed information about a specific Timecard Entry.' It clearly states the use case ('when you already know which timecard entry you want and need its full field set'), distinguishing it from list/search tools. The company scope is evident from the title and explicit company_id handling.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which timecard entry you want' and instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' providing a clear workflow. It does not name specific alternative tools (e.g., project-scoped show_timecard_entry_project), but the context is sufficient. The note about company_id defaulting to procore_set_config is useful, though it slightly conflicts with the 'Required parameters' statement.

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